The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A mentally ill-minded defendant was drunk at the time of committing the instant crime and was in a state of mental disability.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below as to the claim of mental disability is based on the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the defendant committed the crime in this case by moving the victim at bus stops to the fright side of the drone building, ② the defendant escaped from the patrol vehicle after the crime in this case; ② the defendant escaped from the patrol vehicle after the crime in this case; ② the defendant was sent to the fright-gu H by telephone; ③ the defendant also was faced with the situation before and after the crime; ④ the victim was faced with considerable parts of the situation before and after the crime; ④ the victim was taken against the victim’s will to prevent rape; ④ the victim’s sound contents were taken in order to prevent rape; and the process of the crime in this case; the method of the crime; and the defendant’s conduct before and after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant committed the crime in such a state that he had the ability to discern things and make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime.

Furthermore, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act may not apply in accordance with Article 20 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, in a case where the defendant was under a state of mental disorder due to drinking, even though the defendant was under a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime. Thus, the defendant's claim of mental disorder is without merit

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court of first instance on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the court of first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the court of first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, the judgment of the court of first instance is somewhat different from the opinion of