The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles 1) In light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim with respect to rape, the background leading up to the instant crime, the attitude of the victim after having sexual intercourse, etc., the Defendant committed assault and intimidation to the extent that it is impossible to resist the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) As to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (use and photographing, such as camera, etc.), the victim impliedly consented to the first screen pictures, and the victim impliedly consented to the deletion of the second screen pictures without demanding the deletion after the second screen pictures, each of the above videos taken against the victim’s will.

It is difficult to see it.

B. The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Whether a perpetrator committed assault or intimidation to establish the crime of rape shall be determined based on the specific situation in which the victim was placed at the time of sexual intercourse by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the content and degree of the assault or intimidation, the developments leading up to exercising force, the relationship with the victim, and the circumstances at the time of sexual intercourse, and the situation after the sexual intercourse. From an ex post perspective, the perpetrator’s assault or intimidation did not significantly impede the victim’s resistance on the sole basis that the victim could have escaped from the scene of the crime before sexual intercourse or the victim did not resist because the victim did not resist his/her personal ability.

B) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant may not be readily and readily concluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3071, Jul. 28, 2005). In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant made it considerably difficult for the victim to resist by means of using the victim’s attitude, which seems to inflict any bodily harm upon the victim without hearing his/her horses.