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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendants' punishment (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the court below to the defendants (one year of imprisonment for each of the defendants, eight months of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, and surveillance of protection) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court rejected the credibility of the statement made by the investigative agency by the victim, etc. of the misunderstanding of facts 1) victim, etc. (not guilty portion against Defendant B) testified to the effect that memory is not clear in the court of the lower court even though the victim, etc. made a specific and detailed statement at the investigative agency, and acquitted him/her on this part

The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Unless there are reasonable grounds to deem that the appellate court’s determination of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the finding of facts is manifestly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the appellate court should not make ex post facto judgment without any new evidence examination and without permission to reverse the determination of the facts for the first instance judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017). The lower court, based on the victims and P’ legal testimony, lack credibility of the investigative agency’s statement on these facts based on this part of the charges.

On the other hand, not guilty of this part of the facts charged was pronounced.

In the court of the court below, the victims reversed their statements in the investigative agency by testimony to the effect that "no statement from Defendant B to the investigative agency is made to the effect that there is no statement that they would be a danger and injury to the provision of the proviso to the investigation, such as that they have a domicile of death, death, or mother," and P also stated that "no statement from Defendant B to the same purport and no fact was transferred to the victims".

In the court below, the court below held.