The judgment below

Among the accused and the respondent A and C of the attachment order, each of the defendant's case parts and the defendant E.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order to whom the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order to whom the attachment order was applied (hereinafter both referred to as “the person who requested the attachment order to whom the attachment order was applied”) (such as imprisonment for a maximum of three years, two years and six months, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant D (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (an amount of one million won, etc.) is too unreasonable.

3) Defendant E (Offense and Improper Sentencing) Defendant’s “Mururher” (hereinafter “Mururher”) that Defendant’s management of the Defendant was an unmanned telecom with which they pay money to the guests on their own without any manager, and Defendant E could not be aware of the fact that Defendant A et al. was aware of the fact that he et al. was to go to the instant telecom. Therefore, it was difficult to find that he/she was a juvenile.

Therefore, Defendant E is not guilty on the ground that there was no intention to commit this case.

Even if this case was guilty, the punishment (one million won penalty) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A, B, and C (the sentencing against Defendant A, B, and C) (the maximum term of imprisonment with labor for Defendant A, 3 years, 2 years and 6 months, etc., 4 years of suspension of execution in Defendant B and C) is too uneased and unfair.

2) It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for the attachment order of this case even though there is a risk that Defendant A, B, and C may recommit a sexual crime.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A1) Determination of the unfair argument in sentencing (Defendant A and Prosecutor) of the Defendant case (hereinafter “instant crime”) ① The instant crime is a sexual intercourse case with a victim who has lost a full consciousness due to the underbreath of alcohol, etc., and the nature of the offense is not good in itself. ② Defendant A was planning and leading the instant crime by contact with and actively leading the victim with the awareness that the victim would drink, and ③ was against the victim’s body after the instant crime.