The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

80 hours per the defendant.

1. The court below, within the scope of trial, rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the defendant's case, and rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor's request regarding the part of the case for which the request for attachment order was filed, and there is no benefit of appeal as to the part for

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Electronic Device Attachment Act, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant committed a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles only the sexual intercourse with the victims of each temporary border as stated in the facts charged of the instant case.

At the time, the victims did not have been in the state of mental or impossible failure, and even if the defendant did not have the intention of quasi-rape by recognizing the victim's mental or physical disability or the state of failing to resist, the court below found the victims guilty of the facts charged in this case by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Ex officio determination ex officio, the prosecutor shall examine the facts charged in the instant case, which led to the conviction of the court below, and the prosecutor shall keep the Paragraph 2 [the facts charged of each quasi-rape for the victim E (the victim E, 21 years of age, 21 years of age)] of the facts charged in the instant case, as his primary facts charged, and shall file an application for correction of the indictment to add the same contents as the facts charged in the instant case as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, “the name of the crime”, “Article 303(1) of the Criminal Act”, “Article 303(

However, as examined below, this court acquitted the victim E, who is the primary charge, on the charge of quasi-rape, and convicted each supervisor, who is the ancillary charge, of the facts charged. As such, the judgment of the court below is against this.