Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the guilty part against Defendant AB, and the guilty part against Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order AB 1) misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (in the judgment of the first instance, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. due to the administration of chophones by a minor by the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant AB”)) and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant AB”) do not encourage the AI (the name; hereinafter the same shall apply) and AJ (the same shall apply) to display chophones to a minor.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding facts, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the statement by AI and AJ.

2) The lower court’s sentence 1 against Defendant AB (a prison term of four years, additional collection, and provisional payment order) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, additional collection, order of provisional payment, and second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

P(unfair sentencing) The punishment of the lower court (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for three months, additional collection, order for provisional payment, and the third instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for two months, and additional collection) against Defendant P is too unreasonable.

(d)

(1) Of the judgment of the court below 1, Defendant AB’s violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (rape) was committed. The victim AJ was a minor under the age of 14 who was released at the time of the crime under this part of the judgment of the court below, and was under mental suppression, such as being solicited to administer phiphones from Defendant AB, and thus, Defendant AB’s demand for sexual intercourse cannot be refused.

B) From the judgment of the court below of the first instance, Defendant AB’s violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. from Handphone medication around October 11, 2016, and Defendant AB’s statement to the investigation agency of AI that Defendant AB administered phiphones in around October 11, 2016 does not have any special circumstance to make a false statement, and Defendant AB was actual after five days thereafter.