The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of three years and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months, respectively.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A: four years of imprisonment; for defendant B, two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable; and

2. The determination of the Defendants is extremely bad in the nature of each crime committed by the Defendants, who committed rape in a planned way to avoid the crime of committing a crime of taking advantage of, or aiding and abetting, a large amount of agreement from the victim J, who is the births of H.

In particular, in order to support Defendant A’s rape damage, the Defendants left their body or created evidence for recording telephone conversations, and even after the Defendants’ investigation on suspicion of non-competence was initiated, the Defendants brought considerable inconvenience to the exercise of the right of criminal justice by ensuring that criminal justice procedures are conducted by facing their horses, etc., even after the Defendants’ investigation was initiated.

In addition, it seems that the mental suffering that H had experienced in order to avoid this was very serious.

Nevertheless, the Defendants were consistent with the reasoning that it is difficult for the Defendants to accept against various objective evidence, and continued to deny the crimes from the investigation agency to the court below, and did not seem to have shown any reflection.

In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to take into account the fact that the Defendants were found to have committed a crime for the first time in the trial, as the changes in favorable circumstances to the Defendants.

From the perspective of each of the Defendants’ frauds, Defendant A had been punished several times in the past by committing several offenses of frauds under several laws similar to the instant frauds, and Defendant B also had the record of having been punished once by committing the crime of frauds under similar multiple laws.

The above circumstances are unfavorable to the Defendants.

However, in order for Defendant A to be free from trial, the fact that Defendant A agreed with the H, the Council of the Victims of Public Conflict, and the defrauded E is favorable to Defendant A.

However, according to the background of the agreement expressed by the defense counsel of the defendant A, the amount of KRW 30 million paid to the H to avoid the defendant A is from J.