The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under an agreement with the victim, the Defendant had a sex relationship, and the victim was not at the time unable to resist.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged of quasi-rape, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The probative value of evidence of the relevant legal doctrine is left to a judge’s free evaluation of facts. However, such determination must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to find a defendant guilty in a criminal trial ought to be such an extent that there is no reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection by causing doubts with no reasonable basis is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do221, Jun. 25, 2004). The victim’s statement is consistent with the main part of the statement in light of the empirical rule, and there is no part inconsistent with the statement in light of the empirical rule, and there is no obvious motive or reason to make a false statement unfavorable to the defendant, but it is not permissible to dismiss the credibility of the statement by the victim’s victim’s direct testimony or evidence without any justifiable reason in light of the victim’s free evaluation of evidence in the charges of rape (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do547.