Therefore, the part of the prosecution against Defendant C among the facts charged in this case is separate and finalized, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendants (1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A and B) have asserted for mistake of facts with the same purport as other Defendants in the statement of grounds of appeal, but on the second trial, they withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts while recognizing the crime of this case.

Defendant

A and B do not have a sexual relationship with the victim itself.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (as to the Defendant)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Defendant A and B also asserted the same purport as the reasons for appeal in the original judgment, and the lower court rejected the above Defendants’ assertion in detail by stating in the written judgment the Defendant’s assertion and its decision in detail under the title of the Act on the Determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion. In light of the judgment of the lower court compared with the records, the judgment is justified, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts, and therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. The instant crime against the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is a case in which the Defendants had the victims under the age of 13, who were merely the said age, drunk and leaptable.