The judgment below

Part concerning the first crime in the judgment shall be reversed.

It shall be three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. When the Defendant alleged a mental disorder committed a sexual crime of No. 1 as indicated in the judgment of the Defendant, he was under the influence of alcohol and was in the state of mental disorder or mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the assertion of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment for the first crime and six months of imprisonment for the second crime in its holding) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mental disorder, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s allegation was justifiable, and thus, it did not accept the Defendant’s allegation on the ground that the Defendant was aware that he had drinking alcohol at the time of committing the crime as indicated in the judgment, but did not seem to have reached the point where he had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions. 2) In light of the background of the instant crime, the process of the crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior immediately after committing the crime, which was duly adopted and investigated by the lower court’s judgment, the lower court’s assertion on this part

B. As to the allegation of unfair sentencing, the crime of this case in part 1 of the judgment on the argument of unfair sentencing is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, since the defendant attempted to rape an old victim who has exceeded 70 years of age and committed an indecent act by force on attempted rape, and the nature of the crime is bad, and thereby, the above victim suffered a considerable impact on mental and physical aspects.

However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime by drinking alcohol and contingently, the Defendant’s bereaved family members wanted the Defendant’s wife by mutual consent with the victim’s bereaved family members, the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects the Defendant’s mistake. In particular, the instant crime needs to consider equity with the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the crime of robbery injury for which judgment became final and conclusive on September 17, 2011, and all the circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the first crime as indicated in its holding is somewhat unreasonable.