The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for five years, by imprisonment for two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A (a 7 years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B and C’s punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B and C (three and half years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete education, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by authority, and the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with respect to the Defendants, the name and application of the law, and the facts charged against Defendant A as stated below, and the amendment of the indictment with respect to each of the facts charged against Defendant A as stated below. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

Article 15(1)2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Coercive Conduct, etc.) applicable to a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Trade Act, etc.) after the alteration, Article 14(1)4 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, among the facts charged against Defendant A under Article 14(1)4 of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, Article 1-A of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and Article 14(1)2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, the relevant

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Articles 364(2) and 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the Defendants, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Grounds for the judgment below]

1. Defendant A

A. On September 2015, Defendant A became aware of the Victim F (hereinafter “G”) due to the introduction of a child or juvenile sexual intercourse, and exchanged with “G” and became aware of the victim’s mental illness. As the victim came to know of the mental illness, Defendant A pretended to return to the victim.