The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

The victim C (the age of 21) was between the defendant's female-friendly job offering D and the defendant's family-friendly family living together in Gwangju around August 14, 2012, and had been living in Gwangju, while living in the family of the defendant living together with the defendant.

The Defendant, together with the victim, had sexual intercourse with the victim who has been unable to resist twice during the following period:

1. On August 15, 2012, at the Defendant’s house located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, about 06:0, the Defendant drinked the victim, who was divingd in the undertake of alcohol, to report the victim’s sexual intercourse with the victim’s breast and panty, and exceeded the victim’s chest and panty, and had sexual intercourse once.

2. At around 06:00 on August 16, 2012, the Defendant, at the home of the above Defendant, had sexual intercourse with the victim reported to the victim who was divingd at the bed, and had sexual intercourse with the victim, with the victim’s chest and panty only once.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. A written appraisal;

1. Determination as to the defendant and defense counsel's assertion on the result of digital evidence analysis response, suspect A's text messages

1. The gist of the argument is that the defendant has sexual intercourse only with the victim, and has no sexual intercourse with the victim who is not able to resist.

The statements of the victim shall not be believed to be consistent.

2. Determination

A. Article 299 of the Criminal Act refers to the case where psychological or physical resistance is absolutely impossible or considerably difficult due to the reason other than the defect under Articles 297 and 298 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3257, May 26, 2000). The victim’s unpsying condition can also be deemed to be a state of non-refforcing.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do5187 delivered on January 14, 2000). B.

On the premise of the above legal principles, we examine the instant case.