A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence of the lower court (2,00,000 won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant is recognized as having the same alcohol prior to committing an indecent act against the victim.

However, pursuant to Article 20 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Article 10(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act may not apply to a sexual crime committed in the state of mental disorder caused by drinking.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency that the victim’s father or her her m or her m is memory, and that the Defendant sought a letter of intent by directly searching the victim immediately after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and was in a state that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. It is recognized that the defendant is the primary offender, that the defendant sought a letter of tolerance from the victim and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and that the defendant is against all of the crimes of this case.

However, in full view of the facts that the Defendant committed an indecent act against a female on the new wall, and the nature of the crime is not good, and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and theories of changes, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, the circumstances and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable for the Defendant to have committed an indecent act against a female. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.