All appeals by the Defendants and by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants ( Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum term of three years, and imprisonment for a short term of two years and six months, and 40 hours, Defendant B, and C: each of the imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of two years and six months, and the short of two years and six months, and the completion of the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendants to the above-mentioned sentence. The circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendants and the Prosecutor in the trial are already considered in the lower court’s determination of the sentence.

Even if considering the age of the Defendants and the circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, the Defendants are under the influence of alcohol (the age of 16) while viewing each other’s net.