The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) The Defendant, in fact in a relationship with the victim, has sexual intercourse only with the victim under the agreement with the victim, and has not sexual intercourse with the victim, or has no sexual intercourse by using force with the victim.

In light of the fact that the victim’s statement as to the fact of injury of this case is highly difficult to see that the victim suffered from rape in light of the content of the message conversation that was divided into the defendant or his person before and after the sex relationship of this case, the victim had sexual intercourse under several agreements, in addition to the sex relationship between the defendant and his wife, and the victim was filed at three years after the sex relationship of this case, and the circumstance was not generally accepted, and there is a high possibility that the victim’s statement or memory was distorted by his mother-child during that process. Thus, its credibility cannot be acknowledged.

(2) Since all sexual acts between the Defendant and the victim were committed by the victim’s voluntary consent or active demand in “the de facto relationship of death,” the victim cannot be deemed to have suffered sexual humiliation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that such acts were sexual abuse, such as sexual harassment, etc. committed against a child prohibited by the Child Welfare Act.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant and the defense counsel at the original judgment also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case.

Therefore, the court below explained in sequence the legal principles on “defluence” under Article 7(5) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the legal principles on “sexual abuse” under Article 17 subparag. 2 of the Child Welfare Act, and recognized the 8th day of the judgment of the court below recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.