The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding (the point of raped on April 11, 2017) committed assault against the victim at the home of the victim of the new wall on April 11, 2017. However, the victim responded to the demand of the victim of the sexual intercourse after about 40 minutes of the victim's physical fighting, such as generating a drug on the upper part of the defendant's body and dividing the defendant's talk. At the time of the sex relationship, there was no assault or intimidation to the extent that the victim's resistance was impossible at the time of the sexual intercourse.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts (the point of rape on April 11, 2017), the fact of having sexual intercourse with the victim by exercising assault or intimidation to the extent that the Defendant would make it impossible or considerably difficult for him/her to resist the victim, as stated in this part of the facts charged, can be sufficiently recognized.

In the first investigation of the police, the victim is the defendant who is hedging on April 11, 2017.

In addition, the defendant gets her head sleep, and her head slick.

In addition, the name of the title was close with one hand by using the strict and inspection place.

By using both descendants, the defendant was not able to cover the title by using the inside side of the arms because the defendant was quihovah with the face of the defendant and the timber.

As a result, he has been exempted from the raging license.

As the proposal is more seriously against the defendant, the defendant was able to rest.

저는 바지가 벗겨진 상태였고, 다시 피고인과 이야기를 나눴다.

The reason why the proposal is hedging is not suitable for the character of "absent and extreme character."

“The Defendant is too satisfy”.

“.....”