The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Since the Defendant alleged mental and physical weakness had committed the instant crime while on his port, Defendant 1 was guilty of committing the instant crime, his mental and physical weakness should be mitigated.

The lower court erred by failing to mitigate mental and physical weakness.

2) The lower court’s punishment (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program for 3 years and 6 months, 80 hours, and 7 years’ employment restriction) that is unfair is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mitigation of mental and physical weakness 1) Article 10 of the Criminal Act Article 10 of the Criminal Act ( mentally and physically disabled persons) (1) The act of a person who, due to mental and physical disorder, has no ability to discern things or has no ability to make a decision

(2) Punishment may be mitigated for a person who lacks the ability under the preceding paragraph due to a mental disorder.

(3) The provisions of the preceding two paragraphs shall not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a mental disorder by his/her own person.

The mental disorder set forth in the above is a biological factor and needs to be judged to be lacking or reduced in the ability to discern things due to psychological disorder other than mental disorder such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition. As such, even if a person with mental disorder is a person with a mental disorder, he/she cannot be deemed a mental disorder if he/she had the ability to discern things or control action at the time of committing the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7658, Sept. 13, 2018; 2018Do54, May 54, 2018; 2018Mo 6, 2018Mo 2593, etc.) / A written confirmation of admission and discharge (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do119, Sept. 13, 2018).

However, the Defendant: (a) entered a business trip for the purpose of sexual intercourse; (b) refused the sexual intercourse; (c) obstructed the victim; and (c) reported that the victim was far away from the window to avoid the rape of the Defendant.