The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On March 9, 2020, summary of the grounds for appeal are examined to the extent that supplement is made to the submission of the deadline for filing the grounds for appeal.

A. The Defendant asserting misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is merely having sexual intercourse under an agreement after paying the price for sexual traffic, and does not commit rape by threatening and threatening the victim.

There is no intention to rape against the defendant.

On the contrary, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and mistake.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant alleged to the same purport in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, and subsequently convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

In light of all the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the original judgment and the party branch, the judgment of the court below is just and the defendant's allegation in this part is without merit.

In particular, the following is considered in light of the following circumstances.

1) The assault and threat of the perpetrator referred to in the crime of rape should be sufficient to make it impossible or considerably difficult to resist the victim.

Whether this is applicable should be determined based on the specific situation in which the victim was faced at the time of sexual intercourse, considering all circumstances such as the content and degree of assault and threat, background leading up to exercising force, relationship with the victim, sexual intercourse, and the circumstances after the sexual intercourse.

In addition, the victim was able to escape from the scene of crime before sexual intercourse after the fact.

The Supreme Court’s ruling that assault and threat of a perpetrator did not reach the extent of significantly making it difficult to resist the victim’s resistance should not be readily concluded solely on the ground that the perpetrator did not resist due to his or her force.