A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment, 80 hours of sexual assault treatment program, and 5 years of disclosure of information) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, the defendant may be deemed to have served a considerable amount of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, but in light of the circumstances leading to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant had reached a state where the defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions due to drinking. Thus, the defendant's claim of mental or physical disability is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, there are circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided the mistakes, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingently, the rape was committed even if the Defendant committed the crime, and the Defendant was the first offender who had no record of criminal punishment prior to the trial, and the Defendant paid KRW 1.5 million to the victim at the trial.

However, the crime of this case is committed by assaulting the victim who was married by the defendant at night, leading the victim who was married to the female toilet at night, and was attempted to rape. In the process, the victim's resistance was committed by drinking and drinking to several times and causing bodily injury to the victim, etc., which requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment. In light of the method and content of the crime, the nature of the crime is very heavy, and it appears that the fear, physical, and mental shock was very significant at the time of the crime of this case, and that the victim did not receive a letter from the victim until the trial, and that there was no agreement with the victim.