The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, and by imprisonment for two years and six months, respectively.

(b).

1. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the court below (the defendant A: imprisonment of four years; order to complete a sexual assault treatment program of 80 hours; order to complete a sexual assault treatment program of 5 years; order to complete a sexual assault treatment program of 80 hours; order to complete a sexual assault treatment program of 80 hours; and order to complete a sexual assault treatment program of 2 years and six months and 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence is too unfluent so that it is unfair, and the exemption of disclosure and notification order is also erroneous.

B. Although the nature of the instant crime committed by sexual intercourse with the victim, who had been in a state of mental or physical loss under the influence of alcohol, is not very good, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable in light of the overall circumstances, given that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion that the Defendants received unfair claims for sentencing is dismissed.

The specific reasons are as follows.

On the other hand, the court below acknowledged a special circumstance in which personal information shall not be disclosed or notified to the public, and exempted the defendants from the order of disclosure or notification. In light of relevant evidence, pleadings, legal principles, etc., the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error such as misconception of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, etc.

First, the Defendants agreed with the victim as they are against their mistakes in the process of the trial, and the victims do not want punishment against the Defendants.

Second, the Defendants did not have been subject to criminal punishment heavier than that of the same kind of crime and suspended sentence prior to the instant crime, Defendant A and C have a sexual organ by marriage, and the long-term sentence of the Defendants, who are 20 young people, has a harsh aspect.

Third, as Defendant C does not continue to engage in the actual sexual intercourse, the degree of his participation is not relatively more severe.

In addition, the protection observation officer suggested that the above defendant is less likely to repeat a crime.

(c).