All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In the trial of the case of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) against Defendant B, Defendant B did not have made a false testimony, and Defendant B did not instigate a perjury to Defendant A, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in the case of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

B. The lower court’s sentencing (Defendant 1: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service, and 2: Defendant 1: 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable even if it is not so unreasonable.

Judgment

A. The court below duly adopted and examined the assertion of mistake of facts as follows: ① at the first meeting of Defendant B who was detained, Defendant A talked to the effect that he had a son’s son’s son at the meeting of Defendant B, his her son’s son at first meeting, and Defendant B told Defendant B of his son’s son’s son’s son before several years since her son did not have any cruel son; according to the purport of the above horse, Defendant A appears to be unable to accurately sworn the son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son or at least her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son at the time of meeting; ② Defendant A’s son’s son’s son’s son’s testimony and testimony should not be sufficiently emphasized with Defendant A’s son’s testimony.