The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years and by imprisonment for one year and six months, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A(1) was indecently committed against a victim of misunderstanding of facts and did not have sexual intercourse. (2) At the time of committing the instant crime, there was a state of mental disability due to the obsession.

3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is so unreasonable that it is too unreasonable. B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant B’s speech that Defendant A was the victim’s influenite and her own influenite, and her obsing Defendant A and the victim into her motherel. Defendant A could not have entirely anticipated that Defendant A would have sexual intercourse with the victim at her motherel, and thus, the crime of quasi-rapeing and aiding is not established.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable. C. 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are acknowledged that Defendant A lost the victim in a passenger car, and Defendant B used the above vehicle to gather the victim. According to Defendant A’s prosecutor’s statement, Defendant A and Defendant B are joint crimes, since Defendant A and Defendant B have attempted the victim to work and enter the victim into the victim’s telecom.

2 The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the Defendants and prosecutor, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of facts as to mental and physical disability 1) also argued to the same effect in the original judgment, and the lower court rejected the Defendant A’s assertion in its fourth page of the said judgment, and subsequently rejected the judgment. Examining the lower court’s judgment in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant A’s assertion of mental and physical disability is without merit, based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court.