A. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (e.g., Defendant B: imprisonment of four years and six months; imprisonment of two years for Defendant A; imprisonment of three years and six months for Defendant C) is too unreasonable.

B. The public prosecutor (defendant A) misjudgmentation of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles constitutes a principal offender who jointly committed a crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Coercive Act, etc.) in collusion with Defendant B, Defendant C, and accomplice I. 2) The sentence against Defendant A by the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles by the prosecutor against the defendant A, it is necessary to establish the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act as a subjective element, and have committed the crime through functional control based on the joint doctor. Here, the intention of joint processing is insufficient to recognize the crime of another person and to accept it without restraint, and it is one of the joint intent to commit a specific criminal act with the intention of another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do995, Jun. 24, 2004; 2008Do5399, Jul. 28, 2011). The intention of joint processing is one of the subjective requirements and objective requirements, and it is necessary to recognize the criminal intent of one’s own to move to the execution of one’s own criminal act by using another’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5399, Apr. 27, 2008).