The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, for two years, for Defendants B and C.

A. Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order C1) Error misunderstanding of facts and a person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”)

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, even though it was true that there was a sexual intercourse with the victim at each of the dates and places in its ruling, but did not exercise its power in the process only under an agreement with the victim.

B. Defendant A (unfair punishment)’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants on the part of the Defendant case (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, 3 years of suspended execution, and the remaining Defendants’ sentence are as above.

2) The lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for an attachment order of an electronic device is unreasonable, even if it is sufficiently deemed that the Defendants were at risk of recidivism in light of the content of the instant crime, etc. regarding the part regarding which the instant request for attachment order was filed.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment of this case to the effect that the indictment of this case was changed as stated in the separate facts constituting an offense. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained as it is.

However, despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant C's argument about misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, so this part will be examined.

B. Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal scenarios also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected this part of the judgment in detail under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”.

Along with the above judgment of the court below, a thorough examination is conducted by comparing it with records.