The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, at the time of the instant case, the victim did not have any resistance to the situation, and the Defendant only tried to kissk as close as the victim’s kis, and did not attempt to sexual intercourse with the victim, such as the instant facts charged.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of an exaggerated victim’s statement.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months, etc. of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the misunderstanding of the legal principles on factual mistake and misapprehension of the legal principles ) Whether the victim was in a state of impossibility of resisting at the time of the instant case, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly investigated and adopted, the court below can sufficiently recognize that the victim had been in a state of resistance under the influence of alcohol at that time.

The decision was determined.

① The victim, under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case from an investigative agency to the court below’s trial, is not clear as to memory from the main point of “D” to the day immediately before the instant crime.

The above statements made by the injured party may be reliable as stated in the latter (the defense counsel of the accused did not have any other person in the vicinity at the time of the instant case at the court of the original instance, and there was no evidence of the injured party.

Inasmuch as it appears that the victim was aware of the overall situation, such as statement, etc., it is difficult to believe the victim's statement that he/she was in an impossible state of resistance.

One of the arguments is that the victim does not clearly associate with the entire situation at the time of the instant case, but only partially memorys the process of the instant crime after having arrived at the place of the crime by getting the cab along with the Defendant.