However, it is against the Defendants for two years from the date of the final judgment.

The Defendants got out of Korea and temporarily stayed in the victim D(25 years of age)'s residence. The Defendants thought that the victim had sexual intercourse with C and had sexual intercourses with C, and had money and valuables.

On May 12, 2014, at around 02:00, the Defendants entered the residence of the victim in Daegu-gu E-Ba, Daegu-gu, 205; Defendant B asked the victim to “whether or not the victim has come to have sexual intercourse or not;” Defendant A took the head and face of the victim five times with the floor of hand.

Defendant B continued to have been issued one copy of Samsung Card and Hyundai Card, respectively, to the victim, “If C is a male-child who has been about 10 years of age, why it is why it was why it was her fluor, and if he does not do so, she would be a fluoral of tax base, three million won, and three million won.”

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly taken the property of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. The Defendants: Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, and the choice of a criminal sentence

1. Defendants subject to suspended execution: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., confession, reflectivity, gains that they actually acquired, and Defendant B agreed with the victim);

1. Defendants of probation and community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;