A. The crime of this case with mental disorder is under the influence of alcohol and is committed in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, forty-hour orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs, three-year employment restriction orders) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

However, in light of the developments, means and methods of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances before and after each of the instant crimes, it does not seem that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the foregoing reasons at the time of the instant crimes.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and in full view of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing was unabundled and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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