The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below convicting the charged facts of this case, although the degree of injury suffered by a misunderstanding of facts cannot be deemed as an injury in the crime of rape because of minor degree, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment and 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The rationale behind the assertion of misunderstanding of facts is that the injury resulting from rape is extremely minor and that there is no need for treatment, and thus, it does not constitute the injury of the injury resulting from rape in the event that there is no natural recovery and daily life being hindered. However, such argument is premised 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 the course of a daily life or in the course of sexual intercourse in accordance with an agreement, even though there is no assault or intimidation that may suppress the victim's resistance. Thus, if the injury exceeding such degree is caused by such assault or intimidation, the injury shall be deemed as being injured. Whether the victim's health condition is changed to a bad condition and has a disability in his/her daily life should not be objectively and uniformly determined, but shall be determined based on the victim's age

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1039 Decided May 26, 2005). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the full number of the victims, e.g., g., g., the Defendant’s drinking for reasons that the Defendant was unable to properly answer the victim’s speech, on the ground that he was unable to answer the victim’s speech, and the Defendant was raped by inserting the victim’s sexual intercourse with the Defendant’s sexual intercourse.