All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant A did not use force against the victim at the time of the instant case, and did not have any intention to exercise force against the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) at the time of the instant case by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, the victim first asked Defendant B to die while transmitting a photograph of the rooftop of the building, and Defendant B merely provided that “I will die without drinking” in the process of responding to it. Thus, this does not constitute the exercise of force.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

C (unfair sentencing) The sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant C (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant A and B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A alleged in the lower court as to the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.

The lower court, under the title “Determination on Defendant A, Defendant B, and their defense counsel’s assertion”, and taking full account of the circumstances in its reasoning acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court committed similar acts by exercising the victim’s power sufficient to suppress the victim’s sexual free will.

It is reasonable to see that there was an intentional act.