The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged of rape and injury of this case in mistake of facts, “the left-hand side, etc. requiring treatment for about two weeks” suffered interference with daily life.

It cannot be seen as an injury to the crime of rape injury, as a wound that can recover nature that cannot be seen as a poor or health condition.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found guilty of the charge of rape injury is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the punishment imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, and 5 years of disclosure and notification) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The rationale behind the assertion of misunderstanding of facts is that the injury resulting from rape is extremely minor and that there is no need for treatment, and thus, it does not constitute the injury of the injury resulting from rape in the event that there is no natural recovery and daily life being hindered. However, such argument is premised on the premise that there is no assault or intimidation that may suppress the victim's resistance, or that it is the same as the injury that may normally occur in the course of a daily life or in the course of sexual intercourse in accordance with an agreement, even though there is no assault or intimidation that may suppress the victim's resistance. Thus, if the injury exceeding such degree is caused by such assault or intimidation, the injury shall be deemed as being injured. Whether the victim's health condition is changed to a bad condition and has a disability in his/her daily life should not be objectively and uniformly determined, but shall be determined based on the victim's age

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4606 delivered on September 26, 2003, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s face at the time of committing the crime of rape and injury in this case is deemed to have been taken to drink the victim’s face.