A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the victim did not sleep to the extent of mental and physical loss or impossibility of resisting, and the Defendant was also shouldered or locked by the victim.

There is a mental or physical loss or impossibility of resistance only by mistake;

In recognition, H does not attempt to quasi-rape the victim.

The judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's impossible attempt to commit the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, even though the defendant did not have the intention to quasi-rape and the defendant's act does not pose an objective risk of quasi-rape, is erroneous in the misapprehension

B. There is no new objective reason to affect the formation of documentary evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, and in the absence of reasonable grounds to deem that the determination of documentary evidence of the first instance was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the contrary to logical and empirical rules, the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first instance shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). There is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of documentary evidence in the trial process of this court.

In addition, the court below rejected the above assertion in detail, on the grounds that this part of the appeal was the same as the grounds for appeal. The court below rejected the above assertion in the "Determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel's assertion" of the judgment.

There is no reasonable circumstance to deem that the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment was clearly erroneous or that the argument on the acknowledgement of facts and the determination of legal principles is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.

(b) the defendant;