imprisonment with prison labor for 7 years, Dong B, C, and D for a short term of 7 years and 5 years for each such term.

E is an error of law that has been imposed on the short-term 5 years of imprisonment for a maximum of 6 years.

Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for the same seven years as that of Defendant B, C, and D for each of the seven years short-term years;

E Imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of six years and six years, respectively, shall be punished by imprisonment for a short of five years.

Of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, 145 days each for Defendant A and B; and

for E with the same 140 days for the same 135 days, 75 days for the same E

include each such inclusion.

He was in a state of being unable to identify persons under the influence of alcohol, but the court below was robbery against the defendant.

It affected the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that it was found guilty as a rape.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the attorney of Goman C and D is as follows: First, the Defendants G and F

It is not true that no money or valuables was taken by force from the victim F, and that the victim F was not raped by force.

The court below made a judgment by misunderstanding the fact that all the charges against the Defendants were found guilty.

the appeal of Defendant A and the appeal of Defendant C and D

The second and second grounds for appeal by the defense counsel and the gist of appeal by the defendant B and E are the original judgment.

The sentencing imposed on the Defendants is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, first, we examine Defendant A’s grounds for appeal for mistake of facts, and the court below’s judgment is legitimate.

When comprehensively reviewing the various evidences adopted after the examination of evidence according to the records, the defendant of this case

It is recognized that alcoholic beverages are drunk at the time of the crime, but that consequence up to the mental or physical condition of the mental or physical disability.

Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted as without merit.

Next, Defendant C and D’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal for mistake of facts

Examining the evidence in light of the record, each of the crimes committed by the Defendants at the time of original inquiry.

The grounds for appeal by the defense counsel of the said Defendants that the court below erred in the facts

The reason is that it is groundless.

However, prior to examining the grounds for appeal on unreasonable sentencing, the court below's decision on the defendant's grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

The crime of robbery and rape is committed in recognizing the facts at the time of the initial inquiry against the Defendants and applying the law.

The reduction of the amount of punishment against the Defendants even though it is impossible to impose a sentence less than 10 years after the statutory maximum punishment was imposed.

Imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant A, for a period of seven years, for the same B, C, and D without police, etc.

See 7 years and 5 years of imprisonment for the same E in the short term of 6 years and 5 years of imprisonment, respectively, and this is by law.

As such, the appeal of unfair sentencing by the Defendants, Defendant C, and Defendant D’s attorney constitutes a violation of the law.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants shall not be relieved of the reversal.

This is the case.

Therefore, since the appeal by the Defendants is all reasonable, it is governed by Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio and it is decided as follows.

Criminal facts against the Defendants recognized as a party member and summary of the evidence thereof are examined on the basis of criminal facts.

(1) Except that the amount of KRW 6,800 out of the criminal facts is corrected to KRW 68,000 in money, each of the offenses in the lower judgment is applicable.

Since it is identical to that stated in the Criminal Procedure Act, all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court Decision 337 of the Criminal Act provides that the Defendants’ injury by robbery shall not be caused by robbery.

(ii)In the case of robbery and rape, the injury resulting from rape in Article 339 of the same Act shall be subject to Articles 301 and 297 of the same Act.

The crime of robbery and rape and injury resulting from rape are a commercial concurrence under Article 40 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the robbery, which is a serious crime, is a serious crime.

The punishment prescribed for the crime of robbery shall be imposed, and each prescribed penalty for the crime of robbery shall be applicable to the crime of robbery.

Since imprisonment is selected and the two crimes committed by the Defendants are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act, the same Act is applicable.

Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment provided for in the crime of robbery and rape for which punishment is more severe pursuant to Article 38(1)2 and Article 50.

Then, the defendants were detained for a long time as they were in and out of the age of 20.

I peep that the mistake has been pened for a period of time, and the victim stands in Defendant C and D.

(2) If there are grounds to take into account the circumstances, such as the points for which the punishment is not imposed, such action shall not be taken into account.

Defendant A 7 years of imprisonment within the scope of the term of punishment mitigated pursuant to Article 55(1)3 or 55(1)3.

Defendant B, C, D, and E are both juveniles falling under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act.

Pursuant to Article 54(1) of the Act, each of the above B, C, and D shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum of seven years and five years;

E Imprisonment with labor for a maximum of six years and a short of five years, and by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act, the Gu prior to the pronouncement of the judgment

Defendant A and B among the days of gold, 145 days each for Defendant A and B, 140 days each for the same Party C

E of the same 135 days period shall be included in the above sentence.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Yoon Jin-soon (Presiding Judge)