The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not have had the intention to rape and did not have the victim’s intimidation to the extent that he could suppress the victim’s resistance.

The facts charged in the instant case are proved to the extent that the victim’s unilateral statement alone does not reasonably doubt

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts.

B. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was suffering from mental disorder due to drinking alcohol, and was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness at the time of the instant case, because the Defendant was able to escape from an uneasiness or an uneasiness symptoms.

Nevertheless, since the court below did not deliberate on this part, there is an error of incomplete deliberation.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of suspended sentence, 3 years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of order to attend school) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts was clearly erroneous in the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court in relation to the principle of trial-oriented and the principle of direct examination.

In exceptional circumstances, the appellate court should not arbitrarily reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that the judgment of the first instance court on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the judgment of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010). Furthermore, the appellate court has commenced its execution when it has committed violence or intimidation to make it impossible or considerably difficult to resist the victim to have sexual intercourse (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1409, Feb. 25, 2010).

In fact, it should be seen that the victim's resistance is impossible or considerably difficult due to such violence or intimidation.