The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant, not simply quasi-rape the victim of “breathous drinking,” but also quasi-rapeed the victim in the state of “under the influence of alcohol.”

On the other hand, the defendant's statements are hard to believe.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

On July 5, 2017, the Defendant, at around 01:00, had sexual intercourse once with the victim’s body, she exceeded the clothes of the victim D (n, 19 years of age) and the victim’s body, who was in a state of non-fluence, under the influence of alcohol, and inserted the victim’s sexual organ into the victim’s sound book.

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim's non-refluence status.

Judgment

The lower court’s judgment, in detail, states the various facts and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, to the effect that: (a) the victim’s statement to the effect that “the Defendant was in a sexual intercourse at the victim’s room bed with the victim’s mind without memory from the middle where the Defendant was drinking the Defendant; and (b) the victim’s statement was not reliable; and (c) even if the victim’s statement was true, the victim was in a state of mental or physical loss or resistance due to the symptoms of temporary loss of memory caused by a witness boom, which is a witness brue.

Around July 5, 2017, the day of the instant case: (a) there is a fact that: (b) the Defendant made a telephone conversation with the male-gu J of the victim on July 5, 2017 on the day of the instant case, stating that “the victim was locked with the victim while having been inside the victim, and did not occur, and was in a sexual intercourse with him/her because he/she did not have any satisfy; (c) however, there is a situation in which the victim was lodged a complaint from the injured person and was investigated by him/her.”