The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three years and six months.

Defendant .

1. Defendant A

A. The Defendant asserts that, even in an appellate trial, the sexual intercourse, which was around March 21, 2015, took place in agreement with the victim, was concluded.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below held that the victim was forced to leave his/her clothes on the part of the defendant at the investigative agency and was in a sexual intercourse.

The defendant's assertion is rejected due to various circumstances as stated in its reasoning, such as the fact that the defendant stated clearly and consistently, and the judgment of guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable.

The defendant's assertion disputing this is not accepted.

B. The Defendant agreed to the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing with the victim S and the victim of the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (comprehion) and the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (comprehion, etc.).

This is a mitigation factor among the special sentencing factors determined by the Supreme Court's Sentencing Committee.

In addition, most victims of other crimes have agreed during the investigation and the trial of the court below, and the errors have been divided, and there is no record of criminal punishment other than juvenile protective disposition.

In full view of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, family relation, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete the crime) is too unreasonable.

2. Defendant B

A. A. The prosecutor of the Amendments to Bill of Indictment maintains the facts charged (as seen below, the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activities of organizations, etc.) around the end of October 2013 and the end of October 2013) that the lower court acquitted the Defendant for the first time in this court, and maintains the ancillary facts charged as follows.