B, Defendant C’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.

A. As to Defendant B and C1’s crime of attracting sexual intercourse, Defendant B and C1 committed the act required for inducing sexual intercourse

It cannot be seen that the Defendants were in a short period of time with the victim, and there was a factual control that requires a continuous period of time.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Freedom of doctor was infringed on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement)

Therefore, it does not constitute a confinement.

With respect to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the victim was in a state of loss of mental or physical disability or impossibility of resistance required at the time of quasi-rape.

shall not be deemed to exist.

On the contrary, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (each of three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, two years of protection observation, and 40 hours of education) is too heavy.

B. Public prosecutor: The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (2 years and six months of imprisonment, 4 years of probation, 40 hours of probation, 40 hours of probation, 3 years of probation, 40 years of probation, 3 years of probation, 40 hours of probation, 40 hours of probation, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 3 years of probation, 3 years of probation, 40 hours of probation, 2 years and six months of probation, 3 years of probation, 40 hours of probation, 40 hours of probation) is too weak.

Defendant

A, B, C, D, and F are likely to recommit sexual crimes, and thus, the request for an attachment order against the above Defendants should be accepted.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the facts indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence adopted by Defendant B and C regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine. As to the part concerning the crime of attracting sexual intercourse, Defendant A, B, and C proposed a proposal by a person who conceals the original purpose of sexual intercourse, which can be deemed as falling under the suspicion of deceiving the victim who did not have a normal ability to make a judgment by drinking.