All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) At the time of mistake of facts, the Defendant told the victim and B that they were wraped, and there was no such hummatic theory as stated in the facts charged. Defendant A 2) During the sentencing division (a fine of KRW 500,000,000)

B. Of the Defendant B’s sentencing division (a fine of KRW 500,000)

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victim consistently testified from the investigative agency to the lower court that the Defendant had expressed the same desire as the Defendant stated in the facts charged, and the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement was clearly erroneous.

In light of the fact that there seems to be no special circumstance to deem that maintaining or maintaining as it is significantly unfair, ② the witness E also from the investigative agency to the original trial, to the effect that “the defendant following B was able to make a humbling like the entries in the facts charged,” and ③ the witness F of the original trial testified to the effect that “the defendant, not the defendant, was involved in the victim, and led B,” but the witness F of the lower court testified to the effect that “the defendant, not the defendant, was involved in the victim,” but he was prepared and submitted to the police [the evidence record 6 pages, “the defendant,” and the statement prepared and submitted to the police [the witness] stating that “the credibility of the contents as stated in the written statement [the witness E, who was led to the victim, was brought to (B)] would be high.”” The lower court’s conclusion is justifiable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing on the part of the Defendants appears to be difficult to maintain their health and economic conditions due to their old age, and Defendant B is against the Defendants’ acknowledgement of the instant crime in the past.