A. Defendant 1) The crime of this case with mental disorder is committed in the state of mental disorder or mental and physical disability by the Defendant under the influence of alcohol. 2) Considering the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crime and reflects the fact that the Defendant had no criminal record other than a fine once, the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment program) is unreasonable.

B. In light of the circumstances and the nature of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unhutiled and unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it may be recognized that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

However, in light of the occurrence of each of the instant crimes, the means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the said cause at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing is heavy or is frighted so far as it exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion.

4. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.