The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) At the time of the instant gender relationship, the victim did not have the state of mental disorder or impossibility to resist due to drinking, and further, the Defendant did not have the intent to quasi-rape inasmuch as the victim determined that the victim allowed the sexual intercourse.

(2) The lower court’s sentence (two years of imprisonment and forty hours of taking the sexual assault treatment program) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor (two years of imprisonment, 40 hours of attending the sexual assault treatment program) is too unhutiled and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Defendant’s assertion that, even if the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, the victim could not be deemed to have been in the state of mental disorder or failing to resist at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, since the victim had been in the state of mental disorder or failing to resist, the victim could not be deemed to have been in the state of mental disorder or failing to resist at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, since the victim had been in the middle of 2 to 3 hours at night with the rice of October after the victim her getting off the taxi.

Article 299 of the Criminal Code provides that a person who has sexual intercourse or commits indecent act by taking advantage of the person's mental disorder or state of non-performance to resist shall be punished for the same crimes as the crime of rape or indecent act by compulsion in Article 297 and Article 298

Here, the state of impossibility to resist refers to the case where psychological or physical resistance is absolutely impossible or considerably difficult due to the reason other than the defect in accordance with Articles 297 and 298 of the Criminal Code.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2001, Apr. 23, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7403, Sept. 9, 2010). The following circumstances acknowledged by the health care unit for the instant case, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., (i) the customer who was found to work for himself/herself, and the good-faith.