The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of mistake of facts did not reach the state of her failure to resist due to exploitation or the surface of the water at the time of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant was unaware of the victim’s failure to resist, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged

B. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Article 299 of the Criminal Act provides that a person who has sexual intercourse by taking advantage of a person's mental disorder or failure to resist shall be punished as the crime of rape under Article 297 of the Criminal Act. Here, "a state of resistance impossibility" refers to the case where psychological or physical resistance is absolutely absolutely impossible or considerably difficult due to reasons other than mental disorder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do3257, May 26, 2000; 2009Do2001, Apr. 23, 2009). In light of the above legal principle, the intent of the crime of quasi-rape does not necessarily require a conclusive intentional intention, and it is sufficient to do so. 2) In light of the above legal principle, the health class of this case is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the victim's injury at the time of the crime of this case to the extent that the victim's injury exceeded the victim's class of illness at the time of this case.

The defendant, victim, or I, from J's main point of view, and from the defendant's house to the defendant's house, it is true that put put to put a taxi in the process of the process is memory and strawl in the taxi, and it is not completely memory.

It seems that the body was abnormal in the body.