Defendant

In addition, both the appeal filed by the respondent A, the defendant B, and the prosecutor shall be dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant and the person who is the subject of the request for the attachment order and the person who is the subject of the request for the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) agreed to have sexual intercourse with the victim and exceeded the clothes of the victim, and imprisoned the victim; (b) however, the victim did not have sexual intercourse by reporting the chests in the body of the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special quasi-rape) which is the ancillary charge against this part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (limited to four years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete the course, 5 years of order of disclosure notification, 10 years of order to attach an electronic device) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B The sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant B (the imprisonment of three years and six months, the order to complete the course 80 hours, and the order of disclosure notice three years) is too unreasonable.

The victim's statement to the effect that the defendant A, who misleads the prosecutor of the fact, teared the victim's clothes and strokeed the victim's stroke, is consistent from the specific investigation agency to the court below's decision, and the defendant A's genes was detected in the kitchen knife of the defendant B, and its credibility is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which rejected the statements of the victim and acquitted the defendants of the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special rape, etc.) and special robbery, which are the primary facts charged against the defendants, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected

The above punishment, which the court below committed against the defendants, is unfair because it is too uneasible to the defendants.

Article 299 of the Criminal Act regarding the determination of Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts on the case involving Defendant A is an rape under Articles 297 and 298 of the Criminal Act with regard to a person who, by taking advantage of a person’s mental or physical loss, or an incompetence, has sexual intercourse or has induced sexual intercourse.