The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and misapprehension of the legal principle) can be acknowledged that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim D (the victim, 17 years old, hereinafter “victim”) by force. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby acquitted the defendant.

(1) If a victim has given permission for a sexual intercourse and expressed his/her intention of refusal, whether or not there exists any tangible power exercised from the time of refusal shall be determined.

According to the statement of the victim, even though the victim consented to the sexual intercourse, but the defendant was refused, such as leaving the defendant, who was off his clothes, and misunderstanding the bridge, etc., the defendant may be found to have sexual intercourse with the victim by punishing the victim's bridge resistance.

② The Defendant used the victim’s age more than the victim and the victim more favorable than the Defendant, demanding the victim to have sexual intercourse in order to satisfy one’s own sexual satisfaction. The victim refused to have sexual intercourse with the Defendant was in a situation where it is inevitable for the victim to make a decision at the time of the Defendant’s demand from the same imminent mind that the Defendant left the Defendant.

As such, the defendant controlled the victim by using the power to resolve his/her sexual desire, and the victim classified the defendant's intangible status into the defendant's intangible status and led to the suppression of his/her free will.

③ The Defendant asserted that the Defendant attempted to have sexual intercourse and did not abandon the victim’s sexual organ at the end of the wind that the victim refused, but according to the evidence, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant inserted the sexual organ into the victim’s sexual organ.

2. Determination

A. On November 3, 2013, around 15:00 on the facts charged and the facts charged of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant demanded a juvenile sexual intercourse from the Defendant’s house located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C for about five months. The Defendant first allowed the victim’s sexual intercourse, but the Defendant was actually sexual intercourse.