The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for the period of four years from the date this judgment became final.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In fact, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding misunderstanding of facts, even though the defendant tried to have a sexual intercourse with the following victim by driving a taxi on the seaside with the victim's request by the victim C, and did not prohibit the victim from getting out of the taxi against the victim's will, or attempted to rape thereafter, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

In order to establish a legal doctrine related to the determination of mistake of facts, the perpetrator’s assault and intimidation should be such to the extent that it would make it impossible or considerably difficult for the victim to resist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2611, Jun. 25, 2004). Whether there was such assault and intimidation or intimidation should be determined based on the specific circumstances in which the victim was faced at the time of sexual intercourse, taking into account not only the content and degree of the assault and intimidation, but also the background leading up to exercising force, the relationship with the victim, and the circumstances at the time of sexual intercourse and the post, and the victim could escape from the scene of the crime before sexual intercourse.

The lower court’s judgment should not readily conclude that the perpetrator’s assault and intimidation did not reach the extent of significantly obstructing the victim’s resistance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3071, Jul. 28, 2005) solely on the ground that the perpetrator did not resist due to his or her force. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and completed the investigation, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant had detained the victim and attempted to rape, such as the facts charged.

The victim "the defendant was a string on a taxi driving by the defendant, but there was a different string path from the snow, and the defendant was found to have been driving a string due to the d'bab or defect.