The judgment of the court below (including the portion not guilty) shall be reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and Defendant A and B committed joint rapes under the agreement with the victims.

Defendant

A and B did not assault or threaten the victim to the extent that it would make it impossible or considerably difficult at the time of their sexual intercourse.

This is supported by the fact that the victim's sexual act and the victim have sexual intercourses with the defendant A, B and the new wall on the day they had sexual intercourses with the defendant A again under the agreement with the defendant A.

Contrary to this, the victim's statement is not reliable because there are many parts that are inconsistent and contradictory.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on assault and intimidation, which is a constituent element of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes by Joint Rape (hereinafter “Assault Punishment Act”), and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on assault and intimidation, which is a constituent element of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes by Joint Rape (hereinafter “Joint Rape”).

2) The Defendants C’ joint rape of the Defendants is merely a sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victims, and there is no assault or intimidation that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to resist the victim.

In addition, the defendant C did not have the intention to jointly rape with the defendant A and B, and the act of entering the defendant A and B as a functional control for joint rape cannot be viewed as a functional control.

However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts that Defendant C recognized the victim's sexual relationship as a joint rape, and by misunderstanding the legal principles on the conspiracy, sharing of action, and assault and intimidation, which are the elements of joint rape, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty of the reasoning of the judgment below).