A. When committing the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental retardation, it is not recognized that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime of this case in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the means and methods of the crime of this case, the defendant's behavior and attitude before and after the crime of this case, etc., although he was found to have drinking at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing is an indecent act committed by the Defendant by using a blood victim under the influence of alcohol, and the nature of the offense is not good in light of the course of the crime and the content of the indecent act, and the victim did not recover from damage, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and method of the instant crime; and (b) all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, including the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant did not exercise any specific tangible power; and (c) even if considering the circumstances such as the fact that the victim seems to have committed the instant crime immediately upon resistance, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.