The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant with a mental or physical disorder committed the crime of this case due to a serious shock disorder caused by a mental or physical disorder, which is referred to as an act under the condition that the defendant is unable to discern things or to make decisions due to a mental or physical disorder;

As such, the Defendant should be acquitted (the Defendant’s defense counsel stated “no punishment because he/she was in a state of mental or physical disorder,” and stated the reasons for appeal in the written statement of reasons for appeal, so it is deemed that only the Defendant asserted mental or physical loss). B. The sentence that the lower court rendered unfair sentencing (the punishment amounting to five million won, two hundred hours’ order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The mental and physical disorder stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act, as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, requires that the mental disorder caused by biological factors, other than mental disorder such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, has been lacking or reduced in the ability to distinguish things from things due to psychological disorder. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder is a person with normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, if he/she had the ability to discern things or control behavior at the time of committing the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7900, Feb. 8, 2007, etc.). In addition, in determining whether a defendant was in a state of mental and physical disorder at the time of committing the crime, the expert’s appraisal is not necessarily required in determining whether the defendant was in a state of mental and physical disorder. Thus, the court does not necessarily have to undergo expert’s appraisal, taking into account various materials and the defendant’s attitude in the record before and after committing the crime

It cannot be said that there is no illegality with this decision (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701 delivered on December 7, 1993, etc.). In the case of lives, the defendant want to take the appearance of a different nature with a mobile phone on July 19, 2016, which was lived by the defendant on December 7, 1993.