The part of the defendant's case concerning defendant B, defendant A, C, F, and G shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

B.

A. Defendants A, as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case, was allowed to provide one’s house to the victim (the victim in the instant case refers to only the victim who was victimized by sexual assault) as a place for committing sexual assault against the victim, or did not commit any sexual assault against the victim in collusion with the lower court’s 2015 Gohap 33, unless otherwise mentioned.

2) The sentence of the court below against the Defendants [the defendants and the requester for the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants"): the imprisonment of the maximum term of three years and six months, the short term of three years, the defendant A, E, and F: the maximum of two years, the short term of one year and six months, the defendant C: the imprisonment of the maximum of one year and six months, the short term of two years and six months, the short term of two years, the defendant D: the imprisonment of the maximum of two years and six months, the short term of two years, and the defendant G: the maximum of one year and six months, and the short term of one year and three months] are too heavy.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (Defendant A) among the facts charged in the instant case (as to Defendant A), in light of the degree of similarity on December 31, 2014 to the victim, Defendant A, as well as Defendant B, C, E, F, and M, should bear the criminal liability as a joint principal offender.

However, the court below should correct it in an unfair manner because it merely asked Defendant A as an aiding and abetting offender.

2) The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too minor.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted the same purport as that of the above facts, and as to this, the lower court based on the legal doctrine and recognized circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant’s act of similarity by force around December 17, 2014 among each of the above facts charged in the instant case is a aiding and abetting offense of violating the Act on the Protection of Children’s Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (Indecent Acts, such as deceptive means), and by force around December 2014.