The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the robbery and rape of this case, or was in a state of mental disability due to intellectual disability.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment for a maximum term, five years of short term, 40 hours of sexual assault treatment program, and 5 years of disclosure notification order) is too unreasonable.

2. On the ground that the Defendant was a juvenile, the lower court rendered a statutory mitigation under Article 60(2) of the Juvenile Act, and sentenced a maximum of seven years and a short of five years pursuant to Article 60(1) of the Juvenile Act, on the ground that the Defendant was a juvenile.

However, since the term "juvenile" to which the Juvenile Act applies means a person under the age of 19 at the time of adjudication, whether it is a "juvenile" subject to Article 60 of the Juvenile Act should be determined based on the time of pronouncement of judgment in fact.

On May 15, 2013, the date this decision was rendered by the Defendant, as of May 15, 2013, the Defendant cannot be deemed as subject to the Juvenile Act as of May 19, 2013, and thus, it is impossible to render a sentence of mitigation of juvenile offenses

3. The defendant's assertion of mental suffering from mental illness is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, so we will look at the following.

The defendant stated in an investigative agency that he dices alcohol at the time of the crime of attempted rape and robbery, but only took alcohol, and there is no circumstance that he dices alcohol in other crimes.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that there was a state of mental disability due to the state of exploitation.

According to the results of mental appraisal conducted by the court below, it is presumed that the defendant showed mental symptoms, such as the decline of judgment by low intelligence and the decline of shock power, but it is not a mental state and is not a mental and physical state. In addition, the defendant appears to have committed each of the crimes of this case through the details leading up to each of the crimes of this case and before and after the crimes.