The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The victim of the mistake of the gist of the grounds for appeal was not in a situation of resistance at the time of the instant case.

The lower court’s statement to the effect that the circumstances indicated in Paragraph (a) are without merit and most of the situation at the time are not memoryed as follows. The victim’s statement to the effect that “the victim is not in a so-called blackout situation,” and at the time, the victim was not in a so-called blackout situation, including the circumstances mentioned in Paragraph (a) below, and that the victim was not in a non-fluence situation.” The victim and the mother of the victim’s statement to the effect that the victim and the victim’s mother were in a non-fluence situation as described in Paragraph (d) are several questions.

The court below's counter-influence on the indices of an unrefluent state is that the defendant is a store operator with a male aged 45 and the victim is an unmarried female employee aged 25 and did not have a sexual intercourse or agreed with each other. However, the defendant's sexual relationship was conducted in a state of resistance of the victim. However, this circumstance alone is that the victim's sexual relationship was conducted in a state of resistance of the victim.

It can not be inferred, and there should be separate elements such as whether the injured party, from the beginning of the drinking between the accused and the injured party, expressed explicitly and explicitly the accused's intent to refuse the sexual intercourse from the beginning of the sexual intercourse until the beginning of the sexual relationship.

However, if there is a sexual relationship after drinking alcohol as a male and female with his or her status or occupation, it would result in the conclusion that the victim has a sexual relationship in the state of being unable to resist by drinking, which would result in prejudice or intervention.