The judgment below

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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months.

. Prosecutors;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The Defendant with mental disorder was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness due to intellectual disability at the time of preventing each of the instant crimes.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B: 10 months) of the lower court against the Defendants is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on Defendant A’s assertion of mental disorder, the fact that Defendant A was a disabled person of Grade III intellectual disability is recognized, but in light of the following circumstances before and after the commission of each of the instant crimes, the developments leading to each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant A’s behavior at the time, etc., Defendant A was in a state that, at the time of preventing each of the instant crimes, Defendant A did not have or lacks the ability to discern things due to intellectual disability or make decisions.

Therefore, Defendant A’s mental and physical disability argument is without merit.

B. Although the judgment of each of the defendants A and the prosecutor's unfair arguments on sentencing against the defendants was made, the defendant A had been punished twice for the same crime as the crime of joint injury in this case. Each of the crimes in this case committed by the defendants was committed by the defendants. The defendants were committed by the defendants on the grounds that the defendants did not spread a good gate against the victims D (W, 31 years old) who were intellectually disabled persons known to the general public, and the defendants sent the victims to the office of the defendant A, detained the victims, detained the victims, and sexual assault against the victims. The victims were tried to remove the cell phone used by the victims in advance before they were detained in order to prevent the victims from requesting their mother to contact, and the defendants reported the network from the dates and places mentioned in paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YY ACT Y YY YY ACT.