The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability due to excessive drinking.

(b)mental disorder. The sentencing of the lower court (2 million won of fine, and 20 hours of completion of sex crime prevention programs) is too unreasonable.

(F) No objective evidence exists to acknowledge that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case as to the assertion of mental disorder in the board of directors.

Rather, according to the investigation report (Evidence No. 46-47 of the evidence record), it is recognized that the police officer arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender, stating to the effect that “The police officer arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender, “The Defendant had fleded at a rapid speed of 100 meters, and was hiding the Defendant at the toilet of the neighboring site building. At the time of arrest, the Defendant had been drinking alcohol until 3:00 p.m. on the day before the arrest, but at the time of arrest, the Defendant did not drink alcohol, but did not have any problem at all.”

Furthermore, even if the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, considering the method and method of the instant crime and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

In regard to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of offense, recognized the mistake, and reflects it, and is also favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant’s act of self-defeasing sexual organ at the time when the Defendant goes to work and using his hand during his working hours, and the crime of this case is not less complicated in light of the degree of obscenity, the time and place of the crime, etc.

In addition, considering all other circumstances that serve as the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court is too excessive.