The court below rejected the defendant's assertion in light of various circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant's intelligence at present constitutes an intermediate delay level, that the actual social intelligence falls below the boundary level, and that the defendant was in drinking at the time of each of the crimes of this case, although it is recognized that the defendant was aware that he was in drinking at the time of each of the crimes of this case, the defendant's assertion was not in a state where the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified.

The defendant's assertion disputing this is not accepted.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and 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). In this case, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the ground that there was no new data on sentencing

In addition, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, when he returned home with the victim F who first met with the victim F at the drinking place of the person F, by forcing the victim F to commit an indecent act, by theft of the victim F's cellular phone, credit card, etc., and by the above credit card, and the crime was not high quality, and the victim F suffered physical injury, and the victim F seems to have suffered considerable mental shock, and the defendant appears to have suffered considerable mental shock.