The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. In the event of the instant case, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles and mistake of facts, was only sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim, and there is no fact that the victim was injured.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (the period of imprisonment with prison labor for three years and forty hours) is too unreasonable even if the Defendant’s act of sentencing is found guilty.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal principle 1) Whether a perpetrator’s intimidation was committed to establish the crime of rape should be determined based on the specific situation in which the victim was placed at the time of sexual intercourse, taking into account not only the content and degree of the intimidation, but also all the circumstances such as the developments leading up to exercising force, the relationship with the victim, and the circumstances at the time of sexual intercourse, etc.

Manty should not be readily concluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3071, Jul. 28, 2005). In order to determine the credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the injury of rape does not necessarily cause the completeness of the victim’s body or interfere with physiological functions, and it does not necessarily require external suffering. It does not necessarily require external measures. The physiological function here includes not only physical function but also mental function (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2017Do3196, Jun. 29, 2017; 98Do3732, Jan. 26, 199). In determining the credibility of a statement made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court shall not only conform to the rationality, logical and logical inconsistency or empirical rule of the content of the statement itself, or whether the evidence or third party’s statement conforms with the witness evidence or third party’s statement before the court.