The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant, along with E, C, and D, moved play in the apartment house of the Defendant’s female-friendly room in the OM game; (b) the Defendant responded to the defect of the victim’s sexual intercourse with the Defendant as the source of the lawsuit; (c) the Defendant respondeded to the defect of the victim’s sexual intercourse with the victim; and (d) the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim under the agreement with the victim by causing damage to the location of E, C, and D; and (c) there was no fact that the Defendant threatened or threatened the victim to the extent that the victim’s anti-

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty by reliance on the victim's statement without credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish the crime of rape, the perpetrator’s intimidation must be such as to make it impossible or considerably difficult to resist the victim’s resistance. Whether the intimidation was likely to make it impossible or considerably difficult to resist the victim’s resistance should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the content and degree of the intimidation, the developments leading up to exercising force, the relationship with the victim, the sexual intercourse, and the following circumstances.

Therefore, even in cases where a perpetrator, without accompanying assault, has sexual intercourse with a victim by means of intimidation, if the degree of intimidation was the same as above, the crime of rape is established, and even if there is a time interval between intimidation and sexual intercourse, if it is recognized that sexual intercourse has been committed by intimidation, it does not change if it is possible to deem that the sexual intercourse was committed by intimidation (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5979, Jan. 25, 2007, etc.). Meanwhile, even if the victim could have escaped from the scene of the crime before sexual intercourse or the victim did not resist because of the fact that the victim was able to resist by force, the perpetrator’s intimidation is remarkably resisted.