Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (i) The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) were mentally and physically under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. The sentence of imprisonment (three years and six months) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. (1) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

The crime of this case committed by the defendant who was dismissed by Do governor's order was highly significant due to the crime of attempted rape committed against the intellectual disabled persons, and the defendant also has a high risk of repeating a sex offense, but the court below dismissed the defendant's request for attachment order against the defendant.

2. Determination

A. (i) In light of the background and content of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior and attitude before and after the instant crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, did not change things or lacks the ability to make decisions.

In addition, Article 20 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that "When a sexual crime is committed in the state of mental disorder caused by drinking or drugs, Article 10 (2) of the Criminal Act may not apply." Even if the defendant is drunk as the defendant's assertion, he was in a state

Even in light of the background and content of the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., it seems reasonable to not reduce mental and physical disability, and in such respect, the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical disability cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The instant crime of determining unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor is one of the victims who could not defend themselves properly due to intellectual disorder.