The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim was raped by taking advantage of the fact that the victim was in an inbreathy impossible condition under the influence of alcohol. Thus,

2. Determination

A. On May 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around May 24, 2017, under the influence of alcohol from 207 Felel 207 in the new wall Pyeongtaek-si, the Defendant laid off the victim G (V, 31 years of age) who was locked above the telecom, and inserted the Defendant’s sexual organ into the victim’s sexual organ during the victim’s sexual organ.

Accordingly, the Defendant raped the victim by taking advantage of the fact that the victim was unable to resist under the influence of alcohol.

B. The lower court determined that the victim was in a state of mental or physical loss or resistance impossibility at the time of sexual intercourse in light of the following: (a) although the victimized person was unable to properly memory the situation after entering the telecom, he was able to not only satisfe into the telecom, but also satisfe and move the Defendant’s conduct and alcohol.

Although it can not be readily determined, after the victim's sexual intercourse, it appears that the victim was not in a normal state, the victim's sexual intercourse, but the victim was unable to resist as seen earlier, and 30 minutes from her mother 207 her mother her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she

It cannot be readily determined, and the victim could not memory the situation before and after the sexual intercourse due to the so-called "boomout", and the victim was in an impossible state at the time of the instant case.

Even if the defendant knew that he/she was in an impossible state of resistance, or had the intent to use his/her non-opable state of resistance.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that it is difficult to see, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor does not recognize the sexual intercourse itself with the defendant at the time.