The prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants and the Defendant A’s appeal are dismissed, respectively.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The lower court’s sentence against the prosecutor’s Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, etc.) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant A took the ground of appeal for misconception of facts about the initial similar rape, Defendant A explicitly withdrawn the above assertion on the second trial date of this court.

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing against the Defendants and the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing are also examined.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate range.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the sentencing of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing judgment in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, etc.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the Defendants to the aforementioned sentence on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning. Of the circumstances cited by the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal against Defendant A, the Defendants committed the instant crime during the period of suspended execution, and the prosecutor committed the instant crime during the period of suspended execution.