The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Considering the fact that Defendant A recognized all of the instant crimes, Defendant A’s growth in an unfasible environment, and Defendant A’s family member complained of Defendant A’s prior wife, each type of punishment (the first instance judgment: imprisonment for a short term of one year and nine months, a long term of two years and four months, and a long term of four months) for Defendant A is unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant OO received a letter from the victim C and the victim C does not want to be punished by Defendant C, that DefendantO recovered all the damage caused by the fraud, that DefendantO reflecteds with the recognition of all the crime of this case, that DefendantO was sexually set in the environment where DefendantO was inappropriate, that DefendantO’s family member complained of the DefendantO’s wife, the DefendantO’s first decision on the first instance judgment against the DefendantO (short-term one year and September, long-term two years and April) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

Considering the fact that the PP received a letter from the victim C that the victim C does not want the punishment of the Defendant P, that the P recognized the entire crime of this case, that the Defendant P grown in the environment where the P was unstable, and that the Defendant P’s family member complained of the Defendant P’s wife, it is unfair that the decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making on the first cost of the Defendant P (short-term 1 year and 9 months, long-term 2 years and 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. This court decided to hold a joint hearing of all appeals cases against Defendant A, and since the part against Defendant A and the facts charged for the second judgment of the court of first instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be sentenced.

In addition, Defendant P, as a student of BA, is a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance, and was sentenced to an irregular sentence. However, Defendant P is a juvenile under 19 years of age in the appellate court.