1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found the Defendant and the person subject to attachment order and the person subject to medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “defendant”) to have had intent to rape, and found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes among the facts charged in the instant case, and of the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special rape). In so doing, the lower court did not err

In addition, examining various circumstances, excluding the nighttime larceny crime, which can be seen by the evidence duly admitted by the court below, including the background and method of each of the instant crimes, the method of the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical disability only at the time of the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not recognize the defectiveness does not err as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the judgment of the court of first instance recognized the mental and physical disability of the defendant, but did not provide a discretionary mitigation even if there are circumstances agreed with the victims. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that the court of first instance maintained by the court of first instance, the court of first instance recognized the mental and physical disability of the defendant, and determined the applicable punishment within the scope of the statutory mitigation, and the discretionary mitigation is merely a reason for discretionary mitigation, and thus did not

Even if it is illegal, it cannot be considered unlawful.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified.