A. The Defendant, at the time of committing a crime indicated in the facts charged, was drunk and was in a state of mental disability, so punishment should be mitigated.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below regarding the claim of mental disability, the defendant may be found to have committed the crime of this case under the influence of alcohol. However, in light of the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the background leading to the crime, the defendant's behavior at the time, the statement made by the investigation agency and the court, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the crime of this case.

Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

B. It is recognized that the crime of rape in this case was committed in attempted crimes, the injury of the victim is relatively minor, the defendant does not want punishment against the defendant by mutual consent with the victim, the defendant does not have the same criminal power, and there is no criminal record of suspended execution or more except for the violation of the Military Service Act, and the defendant was fully aware of all of the crimes in this case and is seriously against the defendant.

However, the criminal facts and the criminal facts of this case recognized by evidence, evidence law and legal principles (the legal meaning is recognized) are the contents of the victim's injury in the course of rape by the victim's intrusion upon the victim's house. The victim seems to have suffered considerable mental or physical pain, and the victim was arrested in the act of committing the crime and the investigative agency failed to confirm the location of the defendant for a long time after the release.