The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On December 19, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 22:00 on the part of Pariju City B and C’s residence; and (b) on the day through a hosting pattern, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim using the victim’s state of non-opportunance by making the victim fit for the victim; (c) having the victim’s fingers; (d) having the victim’s fingers; and (e) having the victim’s fingers; and (e) having the victim’s sexual intercourse once with the victim.

2. Under the agreement with the victim, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they had a finger in the part of the victim’s sound, and did not insert his sexual organ into the part of the victim, and at the time, the victim was under the influence of alcohol and did not have a state of mental or physical disability or failing to resist.

3. Determination

A. Article 299 of the Criminal Act provides that a person who has sexual intercourse or indecent act by taking advantage of a person’s mental disorder or state of failing to resist shall be punished as the crime of rape or indecent act under Articles 297 and 298 of the Criminal Act. Here, “the state of failing to resist” refers to cases where psychological or physical resistance is absolutely impossible or considerably difficult due to reasons other than mental disorder under Articles 297 and 298 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2001, Apr. 23, 2009). In addition, the crime of quasi-rape under Article 299 of the Criminal Act is established by taking advantage of a person’s state of mental disorder or failing to resist. In order to fall under the crime, the victim’s “the state of mental disorder or failing to resist” as an objective constituent element, and furthermore, the victim’s awareness and intent by taking advantage of the victim’s state of sexual intercourse as a subjective constituent element should be acknowledged.