A. The Defendant with a mental disorder was in a state of mental disorder by drinking at the time of committing each crime set forth in paragraphs 1-A, 2, and 3 of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the defendant had a drinking condition at the time of each crime under Articles 1-A, 2, and 3 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below. However, in light of the circumstances leading to each crime, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime in the above case.

Article 20 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes may not apply to cases where a sexual crime is committed in the state of mental or physical disorder caused by drinking or drugs, even though the defendant was in the state of mental or physical disorder at the time of committing an indecent act against a child under Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act as stated in the lower judgment.

Article 10(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act provides that “As long as the Defendant committed a indecent act against a child by force against a juvenile on sexual assault, as long as he was aware of the state of drinking due to drinking at the time, it is reasonable not to apply Article 10(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act to the above crime.” The Defendant’s argument about the mental

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no submission of new data on sentencing in the trial, and there is a change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court.