A. When committing the instant crime, the Defendant, as a person with a disability of class 2 with intellectual disability, was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to such intellectual disability.

Therefore, the lower court that did not grant statutory mitigation under Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act is unlawful.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the claim of mental disability, the fact that the defendant is a person with a disability of class 2 in intellectual disability is recognized.

However, according to the defendant's attitude of pleading and behavior style in this Court, it does not seem that the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime due to the above intellectual disability. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. On the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant committed indecent act by force against the juvenile victim.

The defendant's crime seems to have suffered significant mental impulses and pains, which seems to have a great impact on the victim's sound sexual values and identity.

In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime because the Defendant was not familiar with the period of repeated crime and was released from prison for not more than two months.

Although there are extenuating circumstances, such as the content and result of the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim, the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, environment, etc., and the Defendant’s age, character, and environment.