A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder by drinking alcohol.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten years of imprisonment, 120 hours of order, disclosure order, and 10 years of order of notice) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined in the court below's determination as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is acknowledged that the defendant had drinking alcohol before the crime of this case, but in full view of various circumstances such as the background, method, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make a decision by drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case.

It does not seem that there was or was a weak state.

In addition, Article 19 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that Article 10(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act shall not apply to a sexual crime committed in the state of mental or physical disorder due to drinking or drugs, which is stated in the judgment of the court below. As alleged by the defendant, it is also inappropriate to legally

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's ground of appeal.

B. There is no previous conviction against the defendant on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

The defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and divided the errors.

The victim was a basic crime of rape, and the victim's injury is relatively weak.

It does not seem that the defendant was planned to commit a crime.

The defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of robbery and has been released from prison and has been living in good faith and has been responsible for supporting the defendant.

Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment three times due to robbery, injury, etc.