A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was in a state of mental illness due to mental illness.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the means and methods of the instant crime, the Defendant’s attitude and words before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, which are acknowledged based on the evidence of mental and physical judgment, it is not deemed that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

The defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

B. It is against the defendant's wrong determination while making a confession of unreasonable sentencing.

However, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment on August 22, 2014 and imprisonment on February 2, 2015 on several occasions with prison labor on August 22, 2014, and committed the instant crime with the same contents once more than four days after the completion of the sentence on February 2, 2015. In particular, the Defendant again committed the instant crime on February 2, 2015, and did not receive a letter from the victim until now, and there is no special change in circumstances to determine a sentence differently from the original judgment.

In addition, in full view of the motive, means and result of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health status, criminal records, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.