The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The judgment below

The summary of the decision of the court below on the grounds of appeal is that the defendant was guilty of having sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim's mental and physical loss or resistanceable condition, and that the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months, by taking into account the defendant's legal statement, the police statement against the victim, the statement of H, the statement of H, the statement of complaint, the video recording photographs of convenience stores, etc.

misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the defendant was sexually related under agreement with the victim who was in a state of being able to make a different judgment.

At the time of the instant case, the victim was not in a state of mental or physical loss or impossibility to resist.

The defendant did not know that the victim was in a state of mental or physical loss or incompetence, and did not have any intention to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim.

The statements of the victim are contradictory and inconsistent, the statements of witnesses and the statements of witnesses are inconsistent, and there is no credibility against the general common sense.

The Defendant only recognized the facts charged of this case differently from the facts in order to receive a prior wife at the lower court.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

The punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, etc.) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the Defendant’s legal statement and victim’s statement in the lower court can be recognized as credibility, and the victim’s memory was post-feasible even after having sexual intercourse with the Defendant.

It can not be seen, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has sexual intercourse by recognizing the victim's mental and physical loss or non-refluence status.

The judgment of the court below is followed.