Whether a perpetrator’s assault or threat was committed to establish the crime of rape shall be determined based on the specific circumstances in which the victim was placed at the time of sexual intercourse, taking into account not only the content and degree of the assault or threat, the background leading up to exercising force, the relationship with the victim, and the circumstances at the time of sexual intercourse and the subsequent circumstances. From an ex post perspective, the victim could escape from the scene of the crime before sexual intercourse.

Inasmuch as the perpetrator’s assault and threat did not reach the extent of making it considerably difficult for the victim to resist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3071, Jul. 28, 2005). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of rape among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of rape.

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.