The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the person in charge of the custody for the treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable and unfair, and that the Defendant received treatment for mental illness at a hospital, etc., it is also unreasonable to protect the Defendant from custody.

2. The judgment on the part of the case of the defendant is that the defendant invadeds on women's toilets of the building and commits an indecent act by deceiving the arms of the victim, and that the crime is minor.

shall not be required to do so.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the mental delay and stimulative disorder, etc., and the degree of indecent act and tangible power committed by the victim is relatively poor.

Considering the circumstances such as the possibility of doing so, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, considering that the defendant did not receive a letter from the injured party until this court, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s treatment and custody need to be provided on the ground that there is a symptoms of inserting the dynamic disability disorder so that appropriate treatment is needed, considering the Defendant’s present mental condition, family relationship, etc., it is difficult to expect that a private hospital voluntarily receive appropriate treatment, and that the Defendant’s treatment and custody need to be provided for high risk of recidivism if not receiving appropriate treatment.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and this part of the defendant's judgment is just.