A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for twenty-four hours.

A. The Prosecutor’s punishment (the first instance judgment: 2 years of probation, observation of protection, and lecture for sexual assault treatment in October, 24 hours of imprisonment, and 4 months of imprisonment) of each of the lower judgment by a public prosecutor is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

B. Defendant 1) At the time of committing the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

2) The punishment of the original 2nd judgment decision is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable to determine the sentencing.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below was rendered and the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against them, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of each of the above appeals cases. Each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions in light of the circumstances leading to the crime, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., even though the Defendant was aware of drinking at the time of committing the crime of injury in this case. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio as seen earlier, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without further proceeding to decide on the defendant and the prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing.