The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime of indecent act by compulsion by force, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder due to the side effects of the non-toxic mental disorder and the drug abuse prescribed therein, the administration of merpta (hereinafter referred to as “prophonephones”), etc.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the determination on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the Defendant is deemed to have administered a penphone on the day immediately before the crime of indecent act by force by force by force, but was found to have failed to have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the fact, even though the Defendant was aware of the fact that he had administered the penphone due to an unidentified mental disorder, etc. in detail.

In addition, Article 20 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that "where a sexual crime is committed in the state of a mental disorder caused by drinking or drugs, the provisions of Articles 10 (1) and (2) and 11 of the Criminal Act may not apply." In light of the details and contents of the crime of intrusion by residence in this case and the criminal records of the defendant, it is reasonable that Article 10 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act does not apply to the crime of intrusion by house in this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant's wrong judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is partially divided.

However, even though the defendant had a record of several times of narcotics, again commits the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime, the crime of this case is that the defendant administered psychotropic drugs without a person handling narcotics, and forced the victim to commit an indecent act by infringing on the victim's residence, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the defendant did not agree with the victim of the crime of indecent act by compulsion of residence of this case until the judgment of the court.