The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

At the time of the case of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the victim did not take the part in the state of mental disorder or impossibility to resist.

Even if the victim had been under the influence of alcohol, the defendant was in a sexual intercourse with the consent of the victim who was in a marital relationship, and there was no intention to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim, recognizing that the victim was not mentally ill or incapable of resisting under the influence of alcohol.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misapprehension of legal principles.

The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant argued to the same effect in the original trial.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion based on the facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, and determined that the victim was unable to resist at the time of the instant case, and that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by recognizing it.

The victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court below that “the victim was sexual intercourse with the Defendant under the influence of alcohol and without consciousness.”

At the time of the instant case, D, and E, together with the Defendant and the Victim, stated that the Defendant et al. got a large number of victims, and that the Defendant et al. moved from a singing place to a hotel.

While the Defendant stated in an investigative agency that “the victim was frighted by drinking, such as opening a door at a singing room and singinginging another room or singinging,” the Defendant was not the victim.

At the time of this case, D/E stated that the Defendant was unable to hear the speech that the Defendant and the Victim were to teach.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant.