The judgment below

Of the defendants C, the part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, Defendant C.

Summary of Reasons for Appeal

A. As to the charge of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (rape-rape) against the victim I (the defendant C, D) (the defendant C, and D part), the lower court found the Defendant guilty of only the attempted part and found the charge not guilty on this part of the charges on the grounds that the lower court found the charge guilty.

In light of the contents of the victim I’s statement, the contents of the statement made by Defendant C and FE at the time, and the contents of the statement made by Defendant D without consistency, etc., the crime committed against the victim I should be deemed to have been completed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous in the relevant part.

B. In light of the content and form of this part of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (a prison term of four years of suspension of execution and fine of 200,000,00 won, etc. for two years and six months of imprisonment) against the lower court is too unreasonable and unreasonable. 2) In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as seen above, the lower court’s sentence against Defendant C and D (a prison term of four years of suspension of execution in two years and six months of imprisonment) on the premise of such error is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant C, who was ex officio judgment (Defendant C part) 1), was a “juvenile” as provided by Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time the lower judgment was sentenced ( June 19, 2020). The lower court rendered legal mitigation by applying Article 60(2) of the Juvenile Act on the ground that Defendant C constitutes a juvenile under the Juvenile Act. As of the date of the declaration of the first instance judgment ( October 13, 2020), it is apparent that Defendant C does not constitute a juvenile under the age of 19 as of the date of the pronouncement of the lower judgment ( October 13, 2020), the corresponding part of the lower judgment premised on this premise is no longer maintained. However, the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, including Defendant C, is still subject to the judgment of the lower court, and thus, the lower court’s determination is based on the following.

B. The lower court, based on various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, determined as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts (Defendant C and D parts).