The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Sexual assault for 80 hours against the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) The sentencing of the lower court against Defendant A is too unreasonable (the attorney’s written opinion, etc. submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the appeal). (2) In so doing, the lower court convicted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged, despite that Defendant B is not a joint offender for the crime of quasi-rape, but a joint principal offender for the crime of quasi-rape, or a joint principal offender for the crime of quasi-rape. However, the lower court convicted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) The sentencing of the lower court against Defendant B is too unreasonable (the defense counsel’s written opinion, etc. submitted after the lapse of the submission period for the grounds of appeal is determined to the extent of supplementing the grounds of appeal set forth in the written reasons of appeal). B. The sentencing of the lower court against the Prosecutor is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment ex officio on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B.

Defendant

B As AE students, at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, illegal sentence was pronounced for falling under “juvenile” under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act, but it is apparent that the case was no longer applicable to the juvenile under the age of 19, and therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below that sentenced Defendant B to the above illegal sentence was no longer maintained.

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the above legal doctrine still is subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to Defendant B’s assertion 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendants had sexual intercourse with the victim J and I on June 25, 2017, and Defendant B, around 09:26 on June 25, 2017, had sexual intercourse with a partner by means of mobile phone Qua message.