A. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and forty-hour order of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant, at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, stated that he was breath or 3 sick prior to the instant crime, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol.

However, at the time of the first investigation, the victim did not snick the defendant at the time of the first investigation.

was stated.

In addition, considering the method of committing the same crime as the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant's attitude after the crime, etc., which can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the defendant's legal statement of the court below and the statement of the police statement of the victim, the defendant cannot be deemed to have reached the degree of the defendant's ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument made by the defendant for the first time.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing in the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction in our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the course of the first instance sentencing trial.

In full view of the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing, it is necessary to maintain the first sentencing judgment as it is.