In addition, all appeals filed by the claimant for the observation order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

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

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court to determine the allegation of mental disorder on the part of the Defendant’s case, namely, the Defendant was under the control of Maitius at the convenience store in P.M. on the day of the crime during the investigation process:

In light of the fact that the Defendant merely stated the situation before and after the crime, and that even based on the Defendant’s appearance expressed in the photograph (Evidence No. 5 No. 5), and the victim’s police statement at the time of committing the crime, it cannot be seen that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

The judgment on the unjust argument of sentencing is reasonable for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant has no record of sex offense with a disabled person with mental disorder 3; (b) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a somewhat contingent and contingent manner under the influence of alcohol; and (d) the instant crime is in a position to contact the victim with the sexual part in front and rear by suffering from the victim’s sexual act after the victim’s sexual act; and (b) the type of indecent act is relatively minor for the Defendant to use the part above the part of the victim’s clothes with his left hand, and the degree of indecent act is relatively minor.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by the victim who first sees in the elevator, which is an enclosed space.