2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, at the time of committing the instant crime, the circumstance that he was drunk should be taken into account in sentencing.

In light of the background and method of the instant crime, the duration of the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the Defendant’s attitude of statement, and the contents of the statement, etc., the Defendant was in a state of drinking to some extent at the time of the instant crime.

Even if so, there was a lack or lack of ability to discern things or make decisions.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the fact that the defendant was drinking to some extent at the time of the crime of this case shall be considered as an element of sentencing.

The crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, where the defendant steals a cell phone of the victim who was under the influence of alcohol, and attempted to rape in a grass field with no human resources of the victim, but the victim resisted and attempted to commit an attempted crime, and the nature of the crime was poor. The mental shock and sexual salvity that the victim could have experienced due to the crime of this case, and the fact that the victim did not receive a letter is presumed to have occurred.

The circumstances are favorable to the defendant, such as the confession of the crime of this case and the fact that the defendant is in profoundly against the defendant, the crime of rape committed by the defendant is committed against the attempted crime, the degree of injury suffered by the victim is relatively minor, and there is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, method, and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that it is without merit.