A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles was at the scene of special indecent acts by Co-Defendant A and Co-Defendant C, but there was no participation in the charges by inviting or cooperating with them at a time and place. However, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of the charges concerning the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special indecent act by force) against Defendant A, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, or in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence (four years of imprisonment) which the court below sentenced Defendant

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant B (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order for a joint crime to be established with respect to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, a conspiracy and implementation as an objective requirement must be shared. However, the conspiracy does not require any legal fixed form of punishment, and thus, a joint processing will directly or indirectly go through the implied view between accomplices, and thus, if there is a comprehensive or individual communication or awareness of the criminal intent, the conspiracy relation is established if there is a circumstance to deem that the act of execution is in a cooperative relationship at time or at a place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1757, Feb. 27, 1998; 2004Do2870, Aug. 20, 2004). Defendant A asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment of the court below, and the lower court duly admitted and investigated as follows: (i) the victim’s refusal to file a complaint against Defendant A and the relevant case under the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below: