All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts is based on the explicit or implied agreement between the victim and the victim, and the victim was not at the time of the occurrence of a sexual intercourse, and even if such condition was not known, the Defendant could not be recognized. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that convicted the Defendant of the charge of quasi-rape was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The judgment of the court below that convicted the Defendant of the charge of quasi-rape of an unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment and eight hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (not guilty portion against Defendant A), the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant was not guilty despite the fact that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim's sexual exploitation status and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. We examine the part concerning Defendant A and B in order of time order of the Defendants’ act.

The judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor (the part not guilty against the defendant A) is difficult to readily conclude that the victim was in the state of mental or physical disability or impossible failure due to alcohol, and even if so, it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant was aware of such fact. From the perspective of the defendant, there is sufficient probability that the defendant naturally had sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim. As such, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to find the defendant guilty on the grounds that the facts charged that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’

A thorough examination of the reasoning of the lower judgment by comparison with records, the victim is familiar with the telecom and the process to the sexual intercourse with the Defendant, even though he was involved in the telecom.