All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable to punish the Defendants.

In particular, the lower court did not prove the Defendants’ criminal facts even though they were quasi-rapes under the Criminal Act. In other words, the fact that the Defendants jointly committed quasi-rapes the victim, which is the core condition of the heavy sentencing, determined the punishment against the Defendants, which goes beyond the inherent limit in the sentencing of the lower court, thereby infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of responsibility.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) In a case where the fact-finding court did not prove the circumstances constituting a separate criminal offense that is not included in the sentencing conditions as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the motive or consequence of the crime charged to the defendant based on the crime charged by the defendant, even though it was not proven by the evidence having the probative value of excluding a reasonable doubt, the key sentencing condition is the sentencing of a criminal punishment, and thus, the determination of an additional punishment that has not yet been instituted against the defendant, thereby leading to the same substance as the additional punishment for the crime that has not yet been instituted against the defendant, it goes beyond the illegality of the sentencing determination, thereby infringing on the above basic contents of the principle of balanced or responsible principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1816, May 29, 2008).2) In a case where an unreasonable sentencing sentence of the court below is too heavy or

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, the sentencing judgment of the court below was judged to have exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria as shown in the judgment of the court below in the course of the sentencing hearing, or the sentencing hearing of the appellate court.