A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The lower court, ex officio, deemed the Defendant as having led to the confession of all the facts charged of the instant case, determined and notified that the Defendant would be tried through a simple trial, and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in accordance with the procedure

However, on March 24, 2016, the Defendant and his defense counsel made a statement to the effect that all the facts charged of this case are recognized on the first trial date of the lower court on March 24, 2016, but at the same time, the defense counsel’s opinion was presented on March 18, 2016, stating that “the Defendant cannot give memory at all at the time of committing the instant crime,” and the Defendant’s defense counsel made the same statement in the final pleading at the above trial date. The purport of this statement is sufficient to deem that it is reasonable to deny the Defendant’s criminal intent or to claim grounds for excluding responsibility for mental and physical loss (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2116, Jul. 9, 2004). Accordingly, the instant case cannot be deemed as a case where the Defendant led to a confession of the facts charged of this case in the courtroom, and thus, the lower court’s judgment was no longer maintained pursuant to a simplified trial procedure.

However, the defendant's argument about mental and physical weakness is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

According to the records on the Defendant’s argument of mental and physical weakness, even though the Defendant was in a drunken state at the time of committing the instant crime, the background and method of the instant crime recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.