The victims of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were under the influence of alcohol when they were sexual intercourse with the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “defendants”), and thus, they were in the state of mental disorder, even if they were broken out in domestic affairs, in light of the situation at the time, the relationship between them, and the psychological condition of the victims, and the victim’s failure to resist. However, the court below acquitted the victims of the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Special Quasi-rape) and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (quasi-rape, etc.) without reasonable grounds.

The sentence of the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment and five years of suspended execution in both cases) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

Article 7(5) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, Etc., and Article 7(5) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and Article 4 of the facts charged as follows, of the facts charged in addition to the prosecutor’s primary charges, while maintaining the original facts charged in the first instance.

A. As stated in the above, the application for amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed, and the Korean court permitted the above application and added the subject to the judgment.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special quasi-rape) and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which are the primary facts charged, are still subject to our court's trial. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal and the ancillary facts added in the trial

The main facts charged in the judgment of the court below and the main facts charged in the judgment of the court below are as follows. The defendants wanted to do so on February 27, 2015 at around 06:50.