Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (No. 1: imprisonment for three years and six months, 80 hours, and 2 months, and 4 months) of the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding the facts as follows: (a) Defendant C did not conspired in advance to rape or use the Defendant A and the Victim; (b) the victim intentionally did so; and (c) the victim did not know that the surface of the water that the Defendant told was a local mental medicine; and (d) did not have the intent to commit a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.; (b) therefore, the lower court convicted Defendant C of the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two and half years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

3) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the disclosure of information about Defendant C for a period of three years.

(c)

The decision of the first instance court against the prosecutor's defendants is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below of first instance on the Defendants [the part against Defendant A (hereinafter “the part against the judgment of the court of first instance”) and the judgment of the court of second instance on the Defendants] of the judgment of the court of first instance, each of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A was pronounced, and the Defendants filed an appeal against the Defendants, and the court of second instance decided to jointly examine each of the appeal cases.

Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act provides that a single sentence shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that the crimes in the judgment below No. 1 and the judgment of the court below No. 2 are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below No. 1 and the judgment of the

B. The lower court’s determination on Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine was 1). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, Defendant C was recorded in the facts charged of this case.