However, the Defendant’s act at the time of drinking and committing the crime was appraised to the effect that the Defendant’s voluntary behavior by drinking would have not reached the degree of mental or physical weakness or mental loss.

Comprehensively taking account of such mental appraisal results as well as evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it does not seem that the Defendant was aware of drinking at the time of the crime, but did not have or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

We do not accept the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of crime.

2. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing by both parties, and where the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). This court has no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court, as the new sentencing data was not submitted.

In addition, the court below’s sentence is to be imposed in full view of the following conditions: (a) the defendant committed a crime during the period of repeated crime; (b) committed an indecent act against three juveniles within a short time of ten minutes; (c) committed an indecent act against others; (d) committed an act against them; (e) committed an act against others; (e) the nature of the crime is not good that they destroyed the cash payment machine of a bank without obvious reasons; and (e) the majority of victims did not receive a letter of suspicion; (e) led to the confession of the defendant; (e) there was no record of a sexual crime prior to the crime; and (e) agreed with the victim of special property