A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) Before physical contact (hereinafter “instant act”) between the victim and the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s statement in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, the victim had formed the same appraisal as the victim, and the victim has continued to express the Defendant.

In doing so, the instant act was committed under the permission of the victimized person.

2) In light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the situation before and after the instant act was conducted, the victim’s attitude against the Defendant, etc., the status of the Defendant as a driving school lecturer cannot be deemed as sufficiently binding force to suppress the victim’s sexual freedom.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for one year’s imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. This part of the Defendant’s assertion as to whether the victim accepted the above act between the Defendant and the Defendant at the time of the instant act cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

1) A) The Defendant began to make such a assertion after the victim’s statement in the lower court’s trial, and there was no such assertion prior to that time.

B) Rather, as the Defendant denied the content of the interrogation protocol prepared by the police two times, and the above interrogation protocol itself was not adopted as evidence, it is unclear as to what the Defendant alleged the Defendant in the initial stage of the investigation.

C) However, even if the prosecutor made the following statements at the time of the instant act, the Defendant stated that the act was based on a unilateral appraisal against the victim, and did not at all assert that the act was committed under the consent of the victim.

(1) Although the defendant did not have a bad appraisal for a victim, the defendant was involved in an accident at the time of the second year of a university.