All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: ① Defendant C has been aware of the victim three times with the indication of friendship, but there is no indecent act or sexual intercourse with the victim.

At the time, the victim was not in the state of mental disorder, and the victim was so.

Even if Defendant C did not know that the victimized person was unable to resist due to a mental disorder.

② Defendant B did not reach the sex relationship upon the occurrence of a sexual intercourse with the victim’s agreement.

At the time, the victim was not in the state of mental disorder, and the victim was so.

Even if Defendant B did not know that the injured party was unable to resist due to a mental disorder.

③ Defendant A was only a sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim.

At the time, the victim was not in the state of mental disorder, and the victim was so.

Even if Defendant A did not know that the injured party was unable to resist due to a mental disorder.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence of the lower court (Defendant C: 3 years of imprisonment, 5 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 4 years of suspended sentence, 3 years of suspended sentence, 5 years of suspended sentence, and 40 hours of lectures for sexual assault treatment) is too unreasonable.

Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the wrongful assertion of sentencing is too uncomfortable.

Judgment

In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court regarding the Defendants’ common assertion as to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court: (a) was in a situation where the victim was unable to resist or resist to the extent that he was unable to exercise his right to sexual self-determination due to mental disorder at the time of the instant crime; and (b) recognized the victim’

The decision was determined.

The reasoning of the judgment below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined.