A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability with mental disorder.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below on the argument of mental disorder, it is recognized that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of committing the crime of rape and rape, but in light of the background and method of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, etc., it does not seem that the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, and therefore, the defendant's mental and physical disorder argument is without merit.

B. There are circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s primary crime without any force to punish the Defendant on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the recognition of mistake, and depth, and the suspension of rape by himself/herself.

However, on the other hand, the crime of intrusion and rape in this case was committed by the Defendant at night, following the Defendant’s intrusion on the house of female her husband and tried to commit rape by drinking, and the nature of the crime is not easy. As such, since the victim received a considerable physical and mental impulse, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant with strict punishment corresponding to the liability for the crime.

Furthermore, in relation to the crime of embezzlement, no damage recovery measures have been taken until now since the crime was committed, the punishment imposed by the court below is mitigated on the ground that the crime of intrusion upon residence and rape in this case constitutes an attempted crime, and the punishment selected by the court below is sentenced within the scope of discretionary mitigation after the aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes, and it seems that the above-mentioned favorable circumstances have been sufficiently considered, and there is no special change in circumstances that would otherwise be different in the trial.