All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants alleged in the appellate brief that no intentional act exists with regard to the crime of intrusion by the room as stated in the lower judgment. However, the Defendants asserted that the sentencing was unfair on the second trial date of the first trial of the first instance court only on the grounds of appeal, and argued that the remaining arguments in the reasons for appeal are only on the grounds of sentencing.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding the facts as to the acquittal portion of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below) committed an indecent act against the victims who were the partners of the above defendant by communicating with the victims in the so-called "Hunting," making a sexual intercourse with each other with each other with each other's partnership, and changing each other's guest room with only five hours mobile phones. The victims had already been in a marital relationship with one another, and there was no other's sexual intercourse or sect with other men who were the partners in the situation where the victims had already been in a marital relationship with one another, and the Defendants had an implied intent even if considering the content of the conversation exchanged between the victims, the Defendants had no choice but to forced contact with the victims.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the lower court: (a) conspiredd the Defendants only to commit the “defensive intrusion”; and (b) conspiredd to commit the “defensive act”

Based on the reasoning of the judgment, the court below acquitted Defendant A of the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Victims of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by Person Indecent Act by Person Indecent Act) and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Victims G. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for the establishment of the conspiracy and by misapprehending the fact

2. Determination

A. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing.