The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was no misunderstanding of the legal principles that the defendant attempted to rape the victim by threatening the victim to the extent that it would make it impossible or considerably difficult to resist the victim, the court below convicted him of this part of the facts charged. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The court below's improper sentencing is too unreasonable (the defendant's defense counsel's grounds for appeal submitted after the appeal period was submitted by the defendant's defense counsel, his counsel's written opinion, and the first trial date of the trial of the first instance court, asserting that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (sexual harassment, etc. against a child) and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (distribution of obscene materials), but such circumstance alone has grounds for appeal.

Nor may see (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do848, May 31, 2007, etc.). 2. Determination

A. In order to establish a determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding the assertion of rape, the perpetrator’s intimidation should be such as to make it impossible or considerably difficult for the victim to resist. Whether the intimidation was likely to make it impossible or considerably difficult for the victim to resist, or make it difficult for the victim to resist, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the content and degree of the intimidation, the background leading up to the exercise of force, the relationship with the victim, the sexual intercourse, and the following circumstances.

Therefore, even in cases where a perpetrator, without accompanying the assault, has sexual intercourse with a victim by means of intimidation, if the degree of intimidation was the above-mentioned degree, the crime of rape is established. Even if there is a time interval between intimidation and sexual intercourse, if it is recognized that sexual intercourse has been committed by intimidation, it does not change if it can be deemed that the sexual intercourse has been committed by intimidation (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5979, Jan. 25, 2007, etc.). Furthermore, the victim’s sexual intercourse with the victim.