The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) that the lower court sentenced against the Defendants (e.g., three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of taking sexual assault treatment courses) are deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendants offered the victim to drink the same alcohol on the same day so that the victim was spawned, and had the victim take a part in his/her vehicle and was unable to resist. In light of the background and method of the crime, the relationship between the Defendants and the victim, etc., the nature of the crime is very poor, and the possibility of criticism is very large.

In particular, the Defendants got off the cell phone of the victim of the defect who tried to report after committing the crime and prevented him from doing so.

With regard to the crime of this case, the victim seems to have suffered a large mental suffering along with sexual humiliations.

However, there are some favorable circumstances for the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendants appeared to have committed the crime, that the Defendants paid KRW 35 million to the Defendants, and that the victims and their parents did not want to be punished against the Defendants, that Defendant A did not have any criminal record in addition to the previous criminal records once, Defendant B was the first offender, and that both the Defendants’ family members and the branch members want to work in the guidance of the Defendants who are university students in the first instance.

In full view of the above circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing, which sentenced the Defendants to a suspended sentence of imprisonment, is within the reasonable scope of its discretion, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, etc. and all other circumstances revealed in the arguments.