The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant asserted that he/she was guilty of facts on the grounds of appeal (as of February 27, 2018) but appealed on the first trial date (as of April 1, 2018) and on the grounds of mistake of facts and illegality in sentencing; (b) the Defendant appealed on the grounds of appeal.

was stated.

Although the argument of unfair sentencing, which was filed after the deadline for submitting the statement of reasons for appeal, is not a legitimate argument of reasons for appeal, it will examine whether the sentencing is unfair ex officio

A. According to the objective statement of H, which is a witness, as to whether the victim was able to take the subject matter or diving at the time of the instant case, and the content of telephone conversations with H after the instant case, the victim was not in a state of her resistance under the influence of alcohol, but was aware of the Defendant’s act by deceiving the Defendant to H.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim under the influence of alcohol by credibility of the victim's statement. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts) Where a witness’s statement, including the victim of the relevant legal doctrine, is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there exist any separate and reliable data to deem that there is considerable credibility from an objective perspective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do362, Apr. 15, 2005; 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In addition, where the witness’s statement is consistent in the main part of the statement, the mere fact that the statement of the witness, including the victim, is somewhat inconsistent with the statement on other minor matters, does not readily deny the credibility of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008). 2)