A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant living together with D, the victim’s mother at the time of the instant crime, but did not reach a de facto marriage phase. Therefore, the Defendant and the victim did not have a de facto marital relationship.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 5(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that a person who has a relationship of kinship commits rape by assault or threat shall be punished by imprisonment for a limited term of not less than seven years. Article 5(4) of the same Act provides that the scope of relatives under paragraph (1) shall be the relatives living together with the relatives who have a relationship of relatives within the fourth degree, and Article 5(5) of the same Act provides that the relatives under paragraph (1) of the same Act shall include the relatives who are in a de facto relationship. Article 5(5) of the same Act provides that all of the marital relations prescribed by the Act shall be a de facto relationship, but the marriage formed by a so-called de facto marriage, which is not recognized by law due to the absence of a report

(See Supreme Court Decision 99Do5395 delivered on February 8, 2000). De facto marriage has a subjective intention to marry between the parties, and objectively there is a substance of marital life that can recognize marital life in terms of family order in light of social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3952 Decided February 14, 2008). Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant and D had a de facto marital relationship.

Therefore, the defendant and the victim are de facto relatives.

① From January 2015, the Defendant was living together with D’s mother D and D’s home from January 2015, and the instant case.