All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Part 17 of the judgment of the court below is subject to the punishment of sexual crimes in the Gu.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts: There is no fact that the Defendant made a false statement to the victims, such as the facts stated in the original judgment.

(B) The crime of a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual assault), a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.), and a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective assault with a deadly weapon, etc.): there is no fact that the defendant has inflicted any injury on, or committed any violence against, the victims at least 31 times in consideration of

(C) The crime of rape, quasi-rape, attempted rape, and indecent act by compulsion: there is no record of each crime.

(D) Crimes of false accusation and fabrication of false evidence: E was directly based on the same content as stated in the written complaint, and it was intended to believe its content as truth and prepare the written complaint. Therefore, there was no awareness of false accusation, and there was no attempt to gather victims.

(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine by ex officio applying Article 347(2) of the Criminal Act without changing the indictment regarding fraud.

(3) The sentence of imprisonment with labor (six years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. (1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the facts-finding prosecutor, the defendant could be found to have acquired pecuniary benefits by deceiving F even though the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the card amount or borrowed money with money or with F credit card as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the F of the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s decision on unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. AB, D, W, AC, E, F, and the lower court alleged that the Defendant had the same purport as the above-mentioned summary of the grounds for appeal. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was erroneous.