A. The Defendant was in the state of mental or physical disability, who was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

B. Regarding the charge of intimidation among the facts charged in the case of mistake of mistake, there was no fact that the Defendant made a threat, either by saying that the Defendant would have caused the victim to die, or by her hand, by showing the attitude that the victim would be at risk of committing the crime

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment and 40 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances indicated in the records of this case, such as the process and motive leading up to each of the crimes of this case, the result of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, etc., there was no “capacity to discern or make decisions” at the time of each of the crimes of this case.

did not appear to have existed in or weak condition.

The defendant's defectiveness or mental disability shall not be accepted.

B. The lower court also rejected the Defendant’s assertion on mistake of fact by providing a detailed statement on the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment under the title “the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion and judgment”.

The circumstances revealed by the court below are as follows. The defendant stated that the police did not have any factual dispute with the victim at the time of the instant case (the second police interrogation protocol No. 103 of the record). The prosecutor made the victim known as the defendant's house without divorce with her husband at the time of the instant case and let the victim talk with her husband at the time of the instant case, and had the victim talked with her husband at the time of the instant case, and had the victim talked with her with her husband at the time of the instant case, and had the victim talked with her significantly.