In addition, both the request for attachment order and the prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.

A. Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”)

(2) The lower court should have rendered a not-guilty verdict pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act or mitigated the punishment necessary pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that, at the time of the instant crime, under the influence of alcohol, there was a lack of capacity to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the lower court should have rendered a necessary mitigation of the punishment. Nevertheless, the lower court did not take such measures. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that form the basis for determining mental and physical condition or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disorder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) In light of the fact that the Defendant of the instant crime

B. In light of the criminal records, the degree of indecent act by the prosecutor, the method of committing the crime, and the fact that the victim appeared at the court of the court below and testified by denying the crime, etc., the punishment of the court below is too minor, and the attachment order period (5 years) period is too short.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder claim, the fact that the Defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of committing the instant crime is recognized. However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s statement about the instant crime committed by the investigative agency; (b) the background, means, and method of the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant’s attitude immediately after committing the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant did not have any or weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is unacceptable.