All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be deemed to have existed at the time of the instant sex relationship, and there was no intention of quasi-rape in order to have sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s mental disorder or the state of failing to resist. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of quasi-rape of this case, which erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The sentence (10 months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court of unfair

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part. As to this, the lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, stated in its reasoning: ① The victim was aware of the Defendant at the time of the instant case’s objection, the circumstance of memory before drinking, and the process of reporting the Defendant’s act by the Defendant at the time of drinking water; and there is no specific and rational or contradictory part in the contents of the statement; the victim’s statement at the court of the lower court does not appear to have made a false statement or exaggerated statement in light of the victim’s statement form, attitude and attitude at the court of the lower court; ② the victim’s statement No. 54 USB [1 right of evidence recording (part 3 rights of investigation record) No. 53 rights of evidence recording at the time of the instant sex relationship and the situation before and after it]; and the record No. 533 of the recording file submitted by the victim to an investigative agency, the prosecutor again stated the recording No. 2563 rights of evidence.