The defendant shall be ordered to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

On September 20, 2013, around 05:00, the Defendant: (a) discovered the victim E (at 20 years of age) who was under the influence of alcohol in the alley near the D cafeteria located in the North Korean territory at the port of port; (b) laid down the victim’s vehicle (F) going to the “Hel” located in the south-gu G at the port of port by driving the said vehicle on his own car (F) where he stops in the vicinity.

At around 06:20 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) placed the victim, who was under the influence of alcohol at the Hemotoel 308; (b) placed the victim on a bed; (c) placed the victim’s clothes and clothes in his bed; and (d) engaged in sexual intercourse once with the victim, taking advantage of the victim’s defective condition of mind.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused on the date of the first trial; and

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Report on investigation (on-site photographs);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing requests for appraisal;

1. Articles 299 and 297 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. The main sentence of Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes committed;

1. Article 47 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Article 49 (1) 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Sexual Crimes, and Article 50(1)2 of the Act on the Protection of Children

1. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was drunk at the time of committing the crime, and was in a state of mental disability.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, even though the defendant was aware of a little amount of alcohol at the time of the above crime, it does not seem that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to such fact, and even if the defendant drinks alcohol, it does not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.