The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing are not submitted in the health zone and the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and in particular, in light of the fact that the sentencing of the lower court was not received from the injured party even after the injured party was given a considerable sense of sexual humiliation and mental shock due to the instant crime, it is too unreasonable to view

[On the other hand, the Defendant stated that he had mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the instant crime in the appellate brief, etc.

According to the records of this case, although the defendant could recognize drinking at the time of committing the crime, in light of various circumstances, including the fact that the defendant is relatively detailed memory in the situation before and after committing the crime, the circumstances of the crime of this case, the method of committing the crime, the act of the defendant before and after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the ability to discern things and make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime.

B. Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act may not apply in accordance with Article 20 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, in a case where the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder caused by drinking, even though the Defendant was under a state of mental or physical weakness by drinking at the time of committing the crime.