A. Since the Defendant, who has not claimed mental and physical weakness, committed the instant crime while lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions, the punishment should be mitigated in accordance with Article 10 of the Criminal Act.

B. In light of the fact that all unfair claims for sentencing were recovered and agreed upon, and that the amount of damage was minor, the sentence (6 months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background leading up to the Defendant’s committing the instant crime and the means and method of committing the instant crime, it is not determined that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of preventing the instant crime.

The defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

B. There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the decision of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing.

In addition, even though the amount of damage is small, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable considering the following factors, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, and motive for committing the crime, although the defendant has repeatedly committed the crime due to the intangible type.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.