A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended execution for six months of imprisonment, and forty hours of attendance order for sexual assault treatment lectures) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the claim of mental retardation, the fact that the Defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime may be acknowledged. However, in light of the background, means, methods, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime was committed, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the weak ability to distinguish things and make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

The defendant's argument of mental disability is not accepted.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing recognizes the facts charged and reflects the mistake, and there are reasonable grounds to consider the background of the crime.

However, the nature of the crime of this case is not somewhat weak, and there is no special circumstance or circumstance that can be newly considered in sentencing after the decision of the court below.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.