The judgment below

Defendant A, B, E, F, and K shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A and B shall be sentenced to four years of imprisonment, and Defendant E.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendants 1) do not constitute a repeated crime under Article 35 of the Criminal Act on March 2014, 2014, on the ground that the period for committing the crime under Article 201-44 and 2 of the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant E) cannot be deemed as a first policeman on March 2014.

2) As to the misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and mental and physical disorder (Defendant F) ① Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (i.e., business conduct, etc.) by joint Defendant I and B, a joint defendant I and B had been forced to leave only the conditions to S, and there was no co-defendant I and B with the joint defendant I and B.

(2) With respect to the special violence, there is no fact that the victim B is placed in a aluminium-preventive network.

(3) With respect to special robbery, there is no fact that the injured party B was forcibly taking 50,00 won by taking the injured party B into Aluminium-proof net.

④ The Defendant committed the instant crime under the mental or physical loss, or mental or physical weakness.

3) Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant K) ① 2016 Gohap 33, the date and time of the crime in the crime No. 1 of the indictment No. 2016 2 through 4 is specified from October 2014 to December 2 of the same year as the day of crime.

In order to exercise the defendant's right of defense, public prosecution should be dismissed because it violates Article 254 (4) of Criminal Procedure Act, which requires minimum specification of facts charged.

② There was no sexual intercourse with the victim S or U at each time and place described in the facts constituting the crime of 2016 high 333 at each time and place.

The defendant did not have conspired with the joint defendant B, A, or L as stated in the above facts of crime, and cannot be viewed as sexual intercourse by force of the defendant.

(3) As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault and attack), there is no conspiracy between the defendant F and BB with the part of assaulting the victim D.

There is no co-defendant's conspiracy in the part where the co-defendant BG 2,60,000 won from the victim D.

4) Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant L) ①.