The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles and mistake of facts, committed a sexual intercourse under the implied agreement with the victim who had a relationship with the victim at the time of the instant case, and did not have sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim’s non-refluence status.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court’s determination was based on the following circumstances, namely, ① there was a picture that the injured person at the time of the instant case told the Defendant that “at the time of the instant case ought to be known to the Defendant,” but the victim was merely a talking in the process of an influence by the Defendant in the court of the lower court. The victim was aware of the fact that he had a sexual intercourse with the Defendant under the circumstances where he was locked.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant, in relation to the crime of quasi-rape of this case, was unable to have consented to the Defendant’s sexual intercourse while photographing the dynamic image inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant and the injured party had sexual intercourse with the victim without the victim’s permission, in view of the following: (i) the video submitted in relation to the crime of quasi-rape of this case, (ii) the victim did not seem to have completely been seen to have been frighted from the locking; (iii) the Defendant also made a statement at the prosecution to acknowledge that the victimized party had sexual intercourse with the victim without the victim’s permission; and (iv) the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim under the explicit or implied agreement.

It is difficult to see that the defendant can sufficiently recognize the intention of quasi-rape.

The decision was determined.

2) Examining the judgment of the court below and each evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, and, in particular, the results of the video file reproduction in the USB in the trial court, the above facts and the judgment of the court below are justified, and they are so determined.