The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the consistent statement of the gist of the grounds of appeal, the amount of the victim’s drinking alcohol at the time of the instant case, and the content of the N messages exchanged between the victim and the Defendant, the victim was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that memory was cut down at the time of the instant crime, and the circumstance where the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s mental disorder or impossibility to resist.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the victim at the time of committing the instant crime that the victim was defective or unable to resist.

Since the court below judged that it is difficult to see that the defendant had the intention of quasi-rape or that the defendant was not guilty, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact and affecting the conclusion

2. In light of various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below held that the defendant was suspected of not having sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim’s condition in which the defendant was unable to resist or resist under the influence of alcohol as stated in the facts charged, but on the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the defendant consistently asserted that sexual intercourse had occurred under the victim’s consent and stated in a very detailed and detailed statement about the circumstances before and after the sexual intercourse; ② On the other hand, there seems to be unclear whether the victim expressed his/her intent to refuse sexual intercourse to the defendant; ③ even on the day on which the victim reported the defendant, the defendant was sexual intercourse with the victim at the victim’s awareness.

The statement to the effect that the victim was unable to resist at least, the victim stated to the effect that the victim was unable to resist, ④ The victim did not verify what he was the defendant even after the defendant was broken at the defendant’s home, and the defendant was in the quantity of a month.