The judgment below

Among the defendants A, the guilty part against the defendant.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) misunderstanding the legal principles on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Special Quasi-rape) by the Defendants; (b) misunderstanding the police officers discovered and seized from the cell phone voluntarily submitted by the Defendants A (hereinafter “the cell phone of this case”) in relation to the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (e.g., deceptive scheme) on August 13, 2015, the video images (hereinafter “the video of this case”) concerning the Defendants’ violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Special Quasi-rape) and the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes by the Defendants A (hereinafter “the video of this case”) related to the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles

In fact, according to the video of the instant case, the Defendant’s statement, and the victim’s statement, the Defendants’ crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes was sufficiently proven.

Defendant

A's violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Use/recording, such as a camera, etc.) shall be admissible as evidence, since the video and the screen of this case are not illegally collected evidence.

In fact, according to the video and the video of this case, the testimony of the defendant A, and the statement of the victimJ, the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes by the defendant A was sufficiently proven.

Defendant A’s summary of the charge of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special quasi-rape) committed by the Defendants at around 12:00 on June 27, 2015, and around 303, the victim J (L, 17 years old) introduced through K at around the time at the vicinity of the residence of the said Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) was first taken in the vicinity of the said Defendant’s residence, and had the said Defendant B take alcohol in collusion with the Defendant B at the said location and had the said victim take alcohol, and the “componment” in the indictment is clear in light of the name of the crime committed in indictment and the applicable law.

. The same shall apply.