A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant, even though he did not have the ability to discern things or lacks the ability to make decisions, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 5 million, the completion of a sexual assault treatment program, and the employment restrictions on children and juveniles-related institutions and welfare facilities for the disabled) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the instant case’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, it is recognized that the Defendant was in a state of drinking due to drinking at the time of the instant crime, but further, it does not seem that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or lacks the ability to make decisions by drinking.

The defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

(원심이 양형이유에서, ‘처음 경찰 수사 단계에서는 피해자의 진술 등을 듣고도 자신의 범행을 부인했지만, 합의 무렵 자신의 범행을 인정하는 것으로 태도를 바꿨다’고 설시하였는바, 이 사건 기록에 의하면 위와 같은 판시가 양형판단 자료로서의 사실을 왜곡 또는 오인하였다거나, 설시 자체가 부적절하였다고 할 수 없다). 원심이 든 사정 이외에 당심에서 원심 형량을 변경할 만한 새로운 사정을 찾을 수 없고, 나아가 ‘아동ㆍ청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률’ 및 장애인복지법에서 성폭력범죄자에...