The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant did not engage in sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s in-depth loss or non-refluence status, but was sexual intercourse with the consent of the victim

Even if the victim was in a state of mental or physical loss or resistance, the victim did not know that the victim was in a state of her own walk and her clothes, and did not know that the victim was in a state of her sexual intercourse, and therefore, there was no intention to commit quasi-rape.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles.

In the court below's decision, the defendant, using non-Admissibility of evidence, gave consent to the time of the detection.

In this regard, the protocol of interrogation of the suspect against the defendant by the public prosecutor included the results of the interrogation, and the above protocol of interrogation of the suspect was adopted as evidence and used as evidence of the court below.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in using inadmissible evidence as evidence of guilt.

The punishment of the lower court (five years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The court below found the victim guilty of the facts charged in this case based on the result of examination of the witness against the victim. In addition to the above evidence and the circumstances acknowledged by the result of examination of the witness E by the court of this case in light of the facts or circumstances duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by using such circumstance while knowing that the victim was under the influence of alcohol or under the influence of alcohol. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

1. The Defendant arrived at the victim and the mother.