The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts had sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim.

At the time of sexual intercourse, the Defendant did not exercise the force to the extent that it would make it impossible or considerably difficult to resist the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty by reliance on the statements of the victim with no credibility is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (three years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete the course) against the Defendant alleged unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) Whether there was intimidation by a perpetrator to establish the relevant legal doctrine ought to be determined based on the specific situation in which the victim was faced at the time of sexual intercourse by comprehensively 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 and the post. From an ex post perspective, the mere fact that the victim could have escaped from the scene of the crime before sexual intercourse or the victim did not resist the victim due to his or her heavy power does not lead to the extent that the intimidation by the perpetrator was significantly difficult to resist the victim.

A readily concluding the testimony should not be readily concluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do4031, Jul. 12, 2012). In a case where a witness’s statement, including a victim, is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, barring any separate evidence to deem the credibility of the statement objectively acceptable, it should not be rejected without permission, unless there exist any reasonable grounds to believe that the witness’s statement conforms to the facts charged. In the major part of the statement, the credibility of the statement is not readily denied solely on the grounds that the witness’s statement is consistent and consistent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008; 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012).