“In the reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the part on the ground, and convicted the Defendant of aiding and abetting similar rape in the relation of a single comprehensive crime, and the Prosecutor did not appeal the part not guilty.

Thus, the part of the acquittal in the above reasoning is also remanded to the trial together with the guilty part by the indivisible principle, but this part is already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and is virtually separated from the object of trial.

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below on the part not guilty of the above reasons shall be followed, and it shall not be judged separately.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A (a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 1 year and 40 hours and orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) The Defendant did not hold the victim’s right arms with his elbow at the time of committing the crime committed by A.

The victim is under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, and not only is able to accurately memory the most of the circumstances at the time of the instant crime, but also is not a witness memory in the police in the original trial.

A. The victim stated that he/she was aware of his/her act and the defendant's act separately.

One of the arguments was unfolded in one room, and it was very rare that it was a mere voice to memory the location of the defendant who was first living on the same day with his voice, and whether the defendant was divided into his own at his own / her own c/ her c/ her c/ her c/ her c/ her c/ her c

At the time of the occurrence of the damage, such as statements, there was no debate.

As to whether the defendant's act can be specified in detail while making a statement.