The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the instant case, the victim of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have continuously exchanged contact with the Defendant until the time when both the Defendant and the Defendant filed a complaint, and the victim filed a complaint for the Defendant three months after the occurrence of the instant case is due to the aggravation of the appraisal of the Defendant due to both assault cases. The victim intentionally deleted part of the content suggesting that the victim knew of the sex relationship with the Defendant and intentionally deleted and submitted it in the process of submitting the content of the Kakakao Stockholm conversation with the Defendant as evidence, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the victim’s statement.

As above, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the victim’s statement. On the day of the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize that the victim was in a state of mental disorder or inability to resist at the time of sexual intercourse with the Defendant, only with the content of the Kakakao Stockholm conversation

In addition, the possibility that the victim impliedly consented to the sexual relationship with the defendant at the time of the instant case in light of the circumstance where the defendant and the victim entered the telecom, the situation where the defendant and the victim had sexual intercourse, the reaction of the victim at the time of the instant case cannot be ruled out. It cannot be deemed that the defendant had the intention of quasi-rape intending to have sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, four years of probation, 40 hours of lecture attendance order, 5 years of employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant in the lower judgment also stated in this part.