All judgment of the first instance court shall be reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Defendant

A sexual assault for 40 hours against B

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court of first instance that found the Defendants guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendants did not have a sexual relationship with the victim by taking advantage of the victim's defectiveness or impossibility to resist, but had a sexual relationship by prior agreement with the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the first instance court on the Defendants (Defendant A: 5 years of imprisonment, confiscation, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years, orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the first instance court held that there was sufficient evidence of guilt in relation to the crime of quasi-rape and special quasi-rape in light of the following: (i) the victim’s statement, Defendant B’s confession statement, the victim’s body expected in front of the her mouth, etc., the CCTV screen image in the her mouth in which the her eye was taken, or the video and photograph inside the cellular phone of the Defendants where the victim was taken, or the victim was sexual intercourse with the victim in a state where her eye was taken, or the victim was taken in a state where her finger was taken, or the victim was taken in a state where her finger was taken. (ii) In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the trial court, the said judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and there was no error of misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of legal principles.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendants used the fact that the victim was in the state of mental disorder or non-performance by drinking while having the victim who was first in the club on the day of the instant case and was in the drinking place on the day of the instant case, thereby leading the victim to the telecoming, burging the victim in the order of order, and burging sexual intercourse.