I read he snuck into the dorm where the two women had been drinking and was put in a sexually discomforting situation. It's curious wording. I interpret this as possibly something along the lines as maybe they're in the room drinking the boy is there they get carried away, she misinterpreted things and tried kissing him maybe tried multiple times to the point he got uncomfortable, maybe showed some obscene photos on her phone, maybe flashed him or something. Inappropriate and shows poor judgement (along with drinking alcohol each night imagine how good Korean women could be if they trained properly), but a world of difference to a violent criminal act which is what sexual assault implies.
The second woman sent what seems to be a sexual photo of the first woman to the boy. Okay, this is wrong, but I wouldn't equate it to a sexual assault.
It seems like they all got caught for their late night partying. KSU started interviewing and piece by piece it unraveled. Maybe the parents wanted the boys phone to see what he had been up to because the parents would not be happy that their son would be facing punishment, wants to see the texts from these two women, they see this obscene photo, report it to the federation.
Also, it seems the age of consent in South Korea is 16 (was 13 until 2020), however it is 13-16 for someone under the age of 19 (which is insane). I'm not justifying them, but trying to understand their thought process and why they might have thought this is not a big deal to fool around with a 15 year old boy (if one were 18 and the other 13 somehow this would be legal). If one of them was slightly younger (maybe they only needed to be one month younger), the boy could have given legal consent (maybe this is not the first time fooling around, and one woman was of age to give consent in the past but not now since turning 19 ).
Also, both women are adults I'm not sure why their identities need to be hidden (not a criticism of GS just in general I don't know why the KSU haven't named them it would not reveal the identity of the boy).
I feel like the punishment of athlete A is the thing that doesn't support that speculation that this was basically just an issue of violating team rules for training camp. The number of years for Athlete A and the fact that these are or were 2 of their top ladies makes me think something against the law occurred.
Assuming the punishments hold for the Athlete A & B and depending on the parameters of what they can and cannot do during the ban - Athlete A's career could be over at the very least she won't have a shot at the Olympics in 2026, Athlete B is potentially going to be away long enough (and potentially damage to her reputation in the Fed) that making it onto the Olympic team is going to be a long shot.