The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

B, C, D, and A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months, and Defendant E shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B, C, and D’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E’s special quasi-rape 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, inasmuch as the Defendant did not have conspired to engage in sexual intercourse with Defendant C, D, and the victim, and did not use the victim’s non-opportunable condition, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of each part of the facts charged, although the Defendant committed a sexual intercourse with the victim’s consent or implied consent, and did not rape the victim, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant guilty on the charge of quasi-rape, and found the defendant guilty on the charge of special quasi-rape, even though the defendant A and the defendant B sufficiently recognized the conspiracy, time, and place of sexual intercourse with the victim, and found the defendant A and the defendant B not guilty on the charge of special quasi-rape.

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

2. Ex officio determination (revision of indictment) With respect to the charged facts of special quasi-rape by the Defendants in the trial of the party, the prosecutor: ① the name of the crime is “the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special quasi-rape)” as “the “rape”; ② Articles 4(3) and (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and Article 299 of the Criminal Act” as “Articles 299, 297, and 30 of the Criminal Act”; ③ the charged facts were “Defendant C had sexual intercourse in the masssan area.”

As a result, Defendant A is combined with Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D are combined in sequence, and Defendant E is raped with Defendant C and Defendant D, and the victim’s number of days of treatment is string off.