The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. On September 24, 2017, at around 07:00, the Defendant: (a) 07:00 building in Sungnam-si; (b) and the Defendant’s house in the Defendant’s family in head of Sungnam-si; (c) performed drinking together with the Victim D (20 years of age); (d) and E; and (e) and F; and (c) performed drinking with the Victim’s home in the victim’s side; and (c) was able to have sexual intercourse with the Victim by taking a locked and drinking in the victim’s side; and (d) was exempted from the Defendant’s sexual organ on the part of the victim’

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim's mental and physical loss.

2. Determination

A. The crime of quasi-rape under Article 299 of the Criminal Act is established by sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the person’s mental or physical loss or the state of impossibility of resistance. The term “mal or physical loss” is interpreted as a situation in which normal judgment concerning sexual conduct is unable to be made due to mental disorder or food disorder, that is, the other party is in defrising (see Supreme Court Decision 76Do3673, Dec. 14, 1976) or the other party temporarily loses consciousness by drinking drugs, etc., or has not lost full consciousness due to drinking, etc., even if he or she did not lose full consciousness due to drinking, etc., it is interpreted as a situation in which normal response ability and judgment ability cannot be exercised.

Meanwhile, in order to constitute the crime of quasi-rape as stipulated in Article 299 of the Criminal Act, not only needs to be “the state of mental or physical loss or arbitrance” of the victim as an objective constituent element, but also the defendant should be recognized as having sexual intercourse with the victim by making use of the victim’s awareness of the state and the use of the victim’s awareness as a subjective element.

In addition, in order to recognize a guilty of the facts charged by only one victim's statement, it is required to have high probative value to the extent that there is no doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the statement, and when determining whether such probative value has been satisfied, it is reasonable, consistent, and objective reasonableness of the statement itself made by the victim.