The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for one year and three months, respectively.

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the facts as follows, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, found Defendant A guilty against Defendant A.

In other words, it is difficult to believe that the victim's statement is not consistent.

In particular, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether the defendants believe the victim's statement and commit the crime.

“...............”

Inasmuch as the Defendants were guilty on the grounds that they made the same remarks as “,” the Defendants did not make such remarks.

② At the time of the instant case, not only the victim was aware of, but also did not have any resistanceable condition. Defendant A believed at the time that the victim was aware of this, that he would allow the Defendants to commit an act, and thus, there was no intention to commit quasi-Rape.

B) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and three months, etc. of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor (unfair sentencing, disclosure, notification, and exemption from employment restriction) is too uneasible and unfair.

In addition, even though the defendants' nature of the crime is poor and the risk of recidivism exists, the court below's exemption from the disclosure, notification and employment restriction order is improper because it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for exemption, or by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion

2. The lower court determined the Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, based on the following circumstances: “A victim’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case can be trusted; and the Defendants are in an impossible state to resist because they were locked by the victim.

In other words, it is recognized that the victim attempted to commit similar rape, but the victim was not locked.

“For the reason that Defendant A was unable to commit the crime of rape,” deeming that it was established against Defendant A.