The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 40 hours.

The victim of the misunderstanding of the summary of the grounds for appeal did not have mental or physical loss or resistance at the time of sexual intercourse with the defendant.

Even if the victim was in a state of mental or physical loss or resistance, the victim himself/herself had himself/herself left the telecom and got her talked with the defendant at the Moel, and the defendant did not know that the victim was in a state of mental or physical loss or resistance impossibility, so there was no intention to commit quasi-rape.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, and 40 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the defendant's assertion and its decision under the title "a decision on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment of the court below.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is correct, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant.

① According to the Defendant’s investigative agency, each of the court below’s statements, the witness I’s legal statement, the witness I’s CCTV video, etc., the victim himself/herself took the subway station stairs into the Defendant’s vehicle, and even if he/she went into the telecom, he/she may know how the Defendant had left.

The process of the defendant's furgy is not memoryd by the defendant.

As we see, the defendant was under the influence of committing a crime, at least 00:03 on the day of the case, at least the victim had been under the influence of alcohol at least at the time of entering the telecom.

In doing so, the defendant did the above circumstances.