The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime due to a misunderstanding of facts as to mental disability and a misunderstanding of legal principles as to the post-malary gift of the organ cells from the age of three. Nevertheless, the lower court’s failure to reduce mental disability is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misapprehending of legal principles. 2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the defendant's grounds for appeal as to mental disability

A. Article 10 of the relevant legal doctrine is a biological factor and requires that mental disorder, such as mental illness or abnormal mental state, as well as psychological disorder, has been lacking or reduced in the ability to discern things due to such mental disorder. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder is a person with normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, he/she cannot be deemed as a mental disorder if he/she had normal ability to discern things or control action.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2360 Decided June 14, 2007, etc.). B.

According to the data submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant was suffering from psychotropic cancer treatment for a long time due to the outbreak of neuk cell species at the age of 3, and there was an obstacle to negotiology and extension function in the process, and the overall recognition function of the Defendant was 75 to 5.0% below the same age group in the comprehensive psychological evaluation of the Defendant, which was enforced on November 8, 2018.

However, considering the following circumstances revealed by the evidence investigated by the court below, the court below did not deem that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case due to the above disability or recognition ability, and therefore, the court below's decision which did not reduce mental and physical disability.