Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have any misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and there was no quasi-rape of the victim, and only the fact that the victim made a sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim after the time of quasi-rape claimed by the victim.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of quasi-rape on the basis of only the statements made by the victim with no credibility, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendant to the punishment (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In the event of pregnancy, due to misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part) and rape, the physical health condition was changed in itself to a bad condition and serious impediment to the function of life.

It should be recognized as an injury in assessment.

However, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the injury caused by quasi-rape, deeming that the pregnancy itself cannot be deemed as an injury on the grounds of the circumstances in its ruling.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below in this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The part of the defendant case

A. In the appellate court’s appellate court’s determination of the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a conviction, and in the absence of reasonable circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first instance judgment shall not be reversed without permission (Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Mar. 22, 2017).