The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the erroneous determination of facts (not guilty part) by the victim’s statement, statement by a witness, Pialmera, telephone conversation content, CCTV image, etc., the victim was in a state of mental disorder or inability to resist by drinking while the victim was under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant fully aware that the victim was in such state.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence (one million won of a fine) imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charge of quasi-rape of this part on the ground that, in full view of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the victim’s statement that the victim was in a state of mental or physical disability or failing to resist at the time of sexual intercourse is inconsistent with the objective evidence or contrary to the empirical rule, and thus, it is difficult to believe it as is. The victim’s statement, CCTV image, and gene appraisal alone is insufficient to recognize the victim’s mental or physical disability or failing to resist, and there is no other evidence to deem that the victim was in a state of mental or physical disability or failing to resist, and even if the victim was in a state of mental or physical disability or failing to resist, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical disability

Upon examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing