The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

A copy of a seized feat.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of the grounds for appeal shall be considered to the extent of supplement in case of documents submitted after the grounds for appeal are not timely filed;

A. Although it was true that Defendant 1 committed robbery, similar rape, and indecent act by compulsion, Defendant 1’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not interfere with the victims’ natural cure and daily life due to extremely minor circumstances, and thus does not constitute injury to each of the crimes of robbery, similar rape, injury by compulsion, and injury by indecent act. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court on the part of the Defendant case (e.g., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., e., g.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination dismissing the prosecutor’s request for attachment order is unreasonable.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. 1) The appellate court may decide on the necessity of ex officio determination only the grounds for appeal entered in the petition of appeal or contained in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted within the period for submission of the statement of grounds for appeal. However, as long as the appeal is lawful, the appellate court shall decide on the grounds for ex officio examination not included in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted within the period for submission of the statement of grounds for appeal (proviso of Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Here, the grounds for ex officio examination include not only the application of statutes or statutory interpretation, but also obvious mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2005Mo564, Mar. 30, 2006; Supreme Court Order 2002Mo338, May 16, 2003). Accordingly, the judgment on the grounds for each