The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of four years and by a short of two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (five years of imprisonment with prison labor, and three years of short-term) is too unreasonable.

B. On December 23, 2015, the prosecutor 1) found the Defendants guilty of this part of the charges based on other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendants’ attempted rape committed on December 23, 2015 was under the influence of alcohol; (b) the victims E (a person under the influence of alcohol); and (c) the Defendants did not adequately express the facts of the crime, and (d) the Defendants not guilty of this part of the charges

2) The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants, which is unfair in sentencing, is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, acquitted the Defendants on this part of the charges on the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse on December 23, 2015, on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In light of the circumstances of the lower court’s reasoning admitted by evidence, even if some content to deem that this part of the facts charged is consistent with the facts charged is included in the J Language message sent and received between the Defendants, such circumstance alone alone proves that this part of the facts charged was without reasonable doubt.

It is insufficient to view it.

Ultimately, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

This part of the appeal by the prosecutor is without merit.

B. Each of the instant crimes committed against the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s respective arguments of sentencing led to the impossibility of resisting by inducing the victims, who were children and juveniles known to the general public, to drink at Defendant B’s house.