Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and for one year and six months, respectively.

provided that this judgment has become final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 1, 2019, the Defendants, on July 1, 2019, she first met the Victim C (n, 21 years of age, 21 years of age) and the Victim’s prone D with the victim’s first met, and thereafter, Defendant A was accommodated in the Daejeon East-gu Eel F, Daejeon, and Defendant B with the victim, respectively.

1. At around 09:20 to 10:00 on July 1, 2019, Defendant A had sexual intercourse with the victim’s body, who was under influence of alcohol, after entering the said G G room with the aid from the above Moel G, and entered the said G room, and had sexual intercourse with the victim’s body.

In the initial written indictment, “(Omission) sexual intercourses with the victim’s body who was under the influence of alcohol,” rather than “(i) sexual intercourses once with the victim’s body who was under the influence of alcohol, and (ii) sexual intercourses at once, and even though the victim refuses to do so, he/she continued to have sexual intercourse once, even though he/she refuses to do so by stating “I have to go to the fright of the victim, I have to go to the fright of the victim.” As such, the Defendant stated that he/she had sexual intercourse against the victim’s obvious will, not a quasi-rape after having made a quasi-rape.”

In relation to this, the prosecutor expressed his opinion on the facts charged that he was indicted for quasi-rape once as a whole on the trial date, and the victim C testified to the effect that "the defendant was present at this court as a witness to the effect that "the defendant was unable to make the above remarks by shouldering from sexual intercourse."

As long as the defendant has a sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim's mental disorder where the victim was able to salute by taking advantage of the victim's mental disorder, the issue of whether quasi-rape has continued to be sexual intercourse in the state where the victim added her sexual organ after being saluted from the sleep is irrelevant to the sex father of quasi-rape, and even if this part of the charge is excluded from the charge of quasi-rape, it does not affect the guarantee of the defendant's right to defense.

This is the defendant.