2. The judgment below seems to have rendered the above sentence in consideration of the favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s absence of the record of sexual assault crimes and the punishment exceeding the fine, and the favorable circumstances, such as contingent crimes, and the fact that sexual assault victims are sexual assault offenders, and the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee, and the recommended sentence by the Sentencing Committee.

In light of the fact that the Defendant was to receive a letter from the victims at the time of the trial, even if considering such circumstance, the lower court’s sentence not only constitutes the lowest sentence subject to discretionary mitigation, but also is lower than the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines in light of the above circumstances, given that the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable and does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

(1) The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that the defendant's appeal is without merit, and is dismissed in accordance with Article 10 (2) of the Criminal Act, since it is difficult to view that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime of this case, and even if the defendant was in a state of mental disorder by drinking alcohol at the time of committing the crime, Article 10 (2) of the Criminal Act may not apply to sexual crimes under Article 20 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, if he was in a state of mental disorder caused by drinking.