The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On July 9, 2017, asserting misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the wife suffered the victim G from the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (e.g., robbery) did not cause inconvenience to daily life, and naturally cured without hospital treatment and clothes.

Such circumstances do not constitute “injury” as provided for in the elements of the above crime.

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “injury” or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the finding of a guilty guilty of all the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) that was unreasonably alleged in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the injury resulting from rape is extremely minor and thus need to be treated as it does not constitute the injury of the injury resulting from rape in a case where natural cure and daily life is not impeded. However, such argument is based on the premise that there is no assault or intimidation that may suppress the victim's resistance, or that it is the same as the injury that may normally occur in sexual intercourse in accordance with an agreement, even though there is no assault or intimidation to suppress the victim's resistance. Thus, if such an excess degree of injury is caused by such assault or intimidation, it shall be deemed that the injury is caused. Whether the victim's health condition is modified as bad and has a disability in his life should not be determined objectively and uniformly, but it should be determined based on the victim's age, gender, body, etc., physical and mental condition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do4606, Sep. 26, 2003; 2005Do136, May 29, 2005).