All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the Defendant’s crime of this case, the Defendant did not recognize it in a state of mental disability by drinking, but did not err in mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, and 5 years of employment restrictions on children and juveniles-related institutions and welfare facilities for the disabled) on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor is too heavy or unreasonable (the Defendant).

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court determined that the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion was rejected on the grounds of the detailed circumstances stated in the “judgment on the claim of mental or physical disability”, and that the Defendant did not seem to have lack the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

In this part of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.

There is no reasonable ground to believe that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair because it is against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of evidence in the trial process of this court.

Ultimately, this part of the judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be said that there is an error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with respect to mental disability claimed by the defendant

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. Compared to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and where the court below’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). This Court is new.