2. The crime of this case is determined by the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant is responsible for raising and protecting the victim who is a father of a de facto spouse in a sound manner; (b) the victim’s mother is detained by violating the Child Welfare Act; and (c) the victim’s mother is detained by violating the Child Welfare Act, and thus, using a situation in which only the Defendant and the victim reside in the Defendant’s residence; and (d) the victim seems to have suffered physical and mental shock that makes it difficult for the victim to suffer from the crime of this case from his father de facto father; and (c) such suffering is likely to disrupt the establishment of a sound sexual identity; (d) the victim’s occurrence is likely to affect our society; (e) it is difficult to view that the victim’s intention to punish him/her is true and genuine; and (e) the victim has maintained his/her intent to punish him/her up to the trial.

The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

The defendant asserts that under the influence of alcohol, the crime of this case was committed in a state of mental disability.

According to the records, even though the defendant was in a drunken state at the time of committing the crime of this case, in light of various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it does not seem that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time. However, the above facts are not found.