In light of various circumstances revealed in the record, such as the background leading up to the crime, the behavior of the defendant at the time of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the defendant at the time of the crime in this case was under the influence of alcohol so as to have changed things or lost or weak ability to make a decision, and therefore, it cannot be said that the

In addition, according to the records, although the defendant submitted a written confirmation of intention to a participatory trial to the first instance court on August 3, 2012, the victim submitted a written confirmation to the first instance court on August 28, 2012 that he does not want a participatory trial, and the first instance court can find out the fact that it decided to exclude a participatory trial, the first instance court unfairly infringed the defendant's right to receive a participatory trial and right to defense.

there is no error of law by the court of original judgment or by failing to correct it.

Meanwhile, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted only the misapprehension of legal principles as to mental and physical disorder as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the principle of no punishment without law, the principle of due process, etc.

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.