The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, with mental and physical disorder, committed the instant crime under the condition of physical and mental loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the amount of KRW 7 million, the amount of KRW 40 hours, the amount of KRW 40 hours, the amount of a sexual assault treatment program program program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the Defendant’s legal statement of the lower court as to the assertion of mental disorder and the process, method, and consequence of the crime as indicated in the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking, even though he was aware of drinking at the time of the crime, in view of the following:

subsection (b) of this section.

Article 10(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes may not apply to the Defendant’s crime of this case, even if the Defendant committed a sexual crime in a state of mental disorder caused by drinking, even though the Defendant was physically or physically deprived or mentally weak at the time of committing the instant crime (Article 10(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act on the reduction and exemption of punishment (Article 20 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes).

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act of Korea, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness as to the unfair argument of sentencing, has a unique area of the first instance judgment as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is reasonable to respect this in a case where the first instance judgment does not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant appears in the attitude to recognize