All of the appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants and Defendant A are dismissed.

The judgment below

Part 6. 5.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserted that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (10 months of imprisonment, 10 months of imprisonment, 8 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable, Defendant A asserts that the sentence is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence imposed on the Defendants is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. As to each of the judgment prosecutors and Defendant A’s respective arguments, it is advantageous to the fact that the Defendants were unable to repeatedly commit the instant crime against many and unspecified people, and that considerable damage has not yet been recovered to the Defendants, that the Defendants were guilty of the same kind of crime, and that the Defendants were led to an unfavorable circumstance, or that they were led to the confession of the Defendants, that part of the victims, that there was an agreement with the victims, and that there was a number of times of participation in the instant crime compared to Defendant A, and that there was no specific penalty for about 10 years.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, motive, means and method of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Prosecutor and Defendant A’s respective arguments are not acceptable, on the grounds that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too somewhat somewhat less severe, or that the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too excessive.

3. In conclusion, since both the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants and the Defendant A’s appeal are without merit, all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the judgment of the court below No. 5 of the judgment below is clearly erroneous in office “for the Defendants, No. 1, 2, 3, and 4, as stated in Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure,” and it is obvious that “for the Defendants, No. 5 of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in office.”