All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A sexual crime against a defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to drinking and exposure at the time of committing the second judgment of this case.

Nevertheless, the second instance court has committed an illegal act that imposes it.

(2) The sentence imposed on the Defendant by the second instance court (two months of imprisonment and forty hours of attendance order) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (with regard to the original judgment of the first instance) sentenced to the defendant by the first instance court (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, probation, 40 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures, 160 hours of imprisonment) is deemed to be too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the cases of the first and second judgments were consolidated in the trial court, and the crimes of each of the above cases are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment should be adjudicated simultaneously in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, each of the above judgments of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion of mental disability in the second judgment is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is next to this.

subsection (1) of this section.

B. In light of various circumstances indicated in the records, such as the circumstances leading up to each of the crimes of this case and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, it is not recognized that the defendant, as to the defendant's claim of mental disability, had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, this part of the argument by the defendant and his defense counsel is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen earlier, and thus, the defendant and the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing.