All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Even if based on the statement of the victim who was erroneous or examined, the Defendant did not use intimidation in the course of sexual intercourse with the victim.

In the body of the victim, the defendant's DNA punishment was not detected.

Prior to the instant case, the victim had a conflict with the Defendant, so there was an incentive to file a complaint against the Defendant.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged as the crime of rape and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish the crime of rape in relation to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or psychological failure, the perpetrator’s intimidation should be such an extent as to make it impossible or considerably difficult for the victim to resist, and whether the intimidation was likely to make it impossible or considerably difficult for the victim to resist, shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the details and degree of the intimidation, the developments leading up to exercising force, the relationship with the victim, and the situation at the time of sexual intercourse and the subsequent circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do59, Jan. 25, 2007). Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted by this court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant can be found to have acknowledged the facts of sexual intercourse with the victim by force by causing an assault that makes it impossible or considerably difficult for the victim to resist or make it difficult for the victim to resist.

Therefore, the lower court’s determination that recognized the instant facts charged as the crime of rape is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged by the Defendant or by failing to exhaust further proceedings.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(1) The police and the court of the court below held that the victim had a large volume of drinking and drinking.