All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendants’ defense counsel at the lower court’s trial, misunderstanding of facts, etc., withdrawn his/her previous consent to each written statement made by the investigative agency on the victims and M, and the court did not cross-examine the persons who did so, thus, each of the above statements made by the Defendants is inadmissible.

2) The lower court recognized that the facts charged were modified, such as deletion of part of the facts charged, is unlawful since it substantially infringes the Defendants’ right of defense.

3) The Defendants did not have sexual intercourse with the victim either through conspiracy to rape or by assault or intimidation.

In addition, the Defendants thought the victim to consent to the sex relationship, but did not have any intention to rape the victim.

4) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the victim’s statement, etc. without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. 1) The expression of intent to consent to evidence under Article 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act may be revoked or withdrawn before the examination of evidence is completed. However, once the examination of evidence is completed, revocation or withdrawal is not recognized. Thus, even if the declaration of consent to evidence is revoked or withdrawn after the examination of evidence is completed (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2611, Jun. 25, 2004, etc.). In this case, in this case, the defendants' defense counsel expressed his/her consent to all the written statements on the victim and M requested by the prosecutor at the first preparatory hearing date of the original trial, and the court below adopted each written statement on the same date and decided on June 27, 2017.