All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A(A) merely made the victims of the instant case known to the scene of misunderstanding of facts, and there was no conspiracy to commit a crime like a crime of fraud or attempted fraud as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there was no deception of the said victims.

B) Nevertheless, Defendant A did not attempt to rape with the victim H, the lower court convicted Defendant A of all the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of facts.

2. The lower court’s sentencing on Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants

A. The probative value of evidence as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, etc. is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such judgment should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial is not required to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence recognized as probative value is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The term “reasonable suspicion” in this context refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of a fact inconsistent with the facts beyond the facts requiring proof in accordance with logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences, and it means a reasonable doubt as to the probability of a fact that is inconsistent with the facts beyond the facts requiring proof. As such, the fact-finding theory that ought to be based on the sexual reasoning that is grasped in relation to the fact-finding in relation to the defendant’s favorable to the defendant, it cannot be said that such doubt is included in a reasonable doubt.