The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles under the agreement with the victim, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant had sexual intercourse against the victim’s will. In addition, even though the victim was under the influence of drinking at the time of the instant case, the victim was not in the state of mental or physical disability or failing to resist, but the lower court determined that the victim was in the state of failing to resist in the crime of quasi-rape by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the state of failing to resist in the crime of quasi-rape. 2) The lower court’

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Article 299 of the Criminal Act provides that a person who has sexual intercourse or indecent act by taking advantage of the person’s mental disorder or state of failing to resist shall be punished as the crime of rape or indecent act under Articles 297 and 298 of the same Act. The legal interest protected by this crime is to protect the sexual self-determination right of a person who is unable to defend himself due to mental or physical circumstances, and Article 302 of the same Act separately provides for the punishment of a person who has sexual intercourse or indecent act against a minor or a person with mental disability under Article 299 of the Criminal Act, in light of the fact that Article 299 of the same Act separately provides for the punishment of a person who has sexual intercourse or indecent act against a minor or a person with mental disability by deceptive means or force, means the case where psychological or physical resistance is absolutely impossible

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do3257 delivered on May 26, 2000, etc.) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below held that the victim’s statement concerning the instant crime is reliable, and ultimately, the victim’s statement is identical to the facts stated in the judgment below.