Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

With respect to the Defendants, 40 hours are 40 hours each.

A. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (three years of imprisonment, forty hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, confiscation, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of three years, two years and six months, and forty hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s ex officio determination as to Defendant B constitutes “juvenile” as provided in Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment of the lower court, but became adult when the judgment became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that sentenced Defendant B to an illegal sentence on the ground that he is a juvenile under the Juvenile Act can no longer be maintained.

B. Defendant A’s judgment on Defendant A had sexual intercourse with Defendant B and the victim’s failure to resist, taking advantage of the victim’s state of inability to resist, and transmitting the victim’s body to his/her relatives, thereby not being good in the nature of the crime. Defendant A did not receive a written indictment from the victim, and the victim appears to have suffered considerable mental shock due to the instant crime.

However, since Defendant A has not reached the age of majority as an elementary school student with no criminal records, it is possible for Defendant A to improve his personality and behavior through proper edification in the future. In particular, the favorable circumstances such as the confession of all of the crimes of this case during the trial are recognized, and it is against depth.

In addition, comprehensively examining various circumstances, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship and social relationship, motive and means of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A seems to be too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable, and the prosecutor’s above Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.