The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the Defendant’s sexual intercourse, such as misunderstanding of facts, the victim was not in a state of mental or physical disability or non-opportune, and the Defendant was sexual intercourse with the victim under the agreement with the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds of the statement of the victim without credibility. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Under the relevant legal principles, the crime of quasi-rape is established by taking advantage of the mental or physical condition of a person, or the state of failing to resist, and is protected by the law to protect the right to sexual self-determination of a person who is unable to defend himself/herself due to such mental or physical condition. In light of such protected legal interests, the term “non-defensiveness” referred to in the crime of quasi-rape refers to a state in which one cannot exercise his/her normal response ability and ability to judge his/her sexual act on the grounds of mental disorder, food, clothing, disability, etc. In addition, Article 299 of the Criminal Act provides that the person who has sexual intercourse or indecent act by taking advantage of the state of mental or physical disability or refusal to resist, shall be punished as the crime of rape or indecent act under Article 297 and Article 298 of the same Act. Meanwhile, in light of the fact that Article 302 of the same Act separately provides for the punishment of a person who has sexual intercourse or indecent act against a minor or a person of mental disability, the case where it is impossible.