The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of four years and six months.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing (unfair sentencing) of Defendant A (i.e., imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 5 years and 40 hours, order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, confiscation) is unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) 1) found a crime against the victim Q and R during an investigation by voluntarily submitting a mobile phone in order to investigate the crime against the victim F. However, notwithstanding the fact that there was no need to obtain an ex post facto warrant, since the new crime was discovered during the investigation by voluntary submission unlike the seizure by the warrant, the court below erred in the evidence evidence evidence evidence; although evidence related to the crime against the victim Q and R discovered from the mobile phone voluntarily submitted by the defendant B need to obtain an ex post warrant, the court below erred in the admissibility of evidence.

Therefore, Defendant B should be convicted of all the facts charged (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles). Sentencing of the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for five years and forty hours, order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, confiscation, Defendant B: the suspension of execution of four years and forty hours, order to attend sexual assault treatment lectures for 120 hours, and order to provide community service for 120 hours) against the Defendants is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below’s determination as to the prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below’s determination that the evidence related to the facts charged against Defendant B, which the victim F voluntarily submitted from the cell phone submitted by Defendant B, and the victim Q Q and R-related evidence acquired from the cell phone voluntarily submitted by Defendant B constituted unlawful evidence in violation of the warrant requirement is just and acceptable. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected

(c).