1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years;

3. Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 is merely a sexual intercourse under an agreement with the victim and there is no fact that the victim rapes. Defendant 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether there was assault or intimidation by a perpetrator to establish a determination of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts should be determined based on the specific situation in which the victim was placed at the time of sexual intercourse by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the content and degree of the assault or intimidation, the developments leading up to exercising force, the relationship with the victim, and the circumstances at the time of sexual intercourse. From an ex post perspective, the victim could have escaped from the scene of the crime before sexual intercourse.

Inasmuch as the perpetrator’s assault and intimidation did not reach the extent of making it considerably difficult for the victim to resist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3071, Jul. 28, 2005). The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment, and the lower court determined that the Defendant could have acknowledged the fact of rape by suppressing the victim’s resistance as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part; and (b) the lower court stated in detail in the part of the “determination on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion”

In light of the above legal principles and circumstances revealed by the court below, the court below's aforementioned determination is just, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

1. The victim appeared in the court of first instance following the judgment of the court below, and harming the defendant by hand at the time of the crime of this case.