All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request with respect to each prosecuted case against the Defendants, while rendering a judgment of conviction as to each of the instant accused case, and the Defendants appealed therefrom, which eventually does not have any benefit of appeal with respect to the request for attachment order.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. for Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order against the Defendants is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the accused case falls under the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the legal principles and mistake of facts, Defendant A1 did not use force against the victims at the time of the instant case, and there was no conspiracy to rape between Defendant B and the victims, and Defendant B did not participate in and did not have been aware of the crime of rape, Defendant B cannot be deemed to have committed rape in combination with the victim K. Nevertheless, the judgment below which found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendants conspired to commit rape and had a cooperative relationship in time and place, and found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged, was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and misconception of facts, and by misapprehending the legal principles and misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a special rape crime by committing a crime under Article 297 of the Criminal Act by combining two or more persons under Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the legal principles and the assertion of mistake of facts must be shared with the conduct as an objective requirement. However, the solicitation does not require any legal qualification, and thus, it is directly or indirectly between accomplices.