All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In the event that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability due to exposure, depression, etc. at the time of committing the instant crime, the court below erred by misapprehending the above.

In light of the fact that the defendant's wrong recognition of unfair sentencing and reflects on the defendant's wrong act, and that the defendant was exposed to exposure due to sexual indecent act that was caused by the defendant's sexual harassment, and was under mental and medical treatment, but the defendant did not take the drug on the day of the instant case committed the instant crime, it is unreasonable that the court below's sentence that issued an order to complete sexual assault treatment programs for 6 months and 40 hours and to issue an order to disclose personal information for 3 years is too unreasonable.

In light of the fact that the prosecutor (unfairness) committed the instant crime at the same time only one month after the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment for the same kind of crime and completed the execution of sentence, and that it seems that the psychological impulse was very significant to the victimized child under the age of 10 due to the instant crime, the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

Defendant

In full view of the background, means and methods of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the defense counsel’s mental and physical disability, the fact that there was symptoms, such as exposure to the Defendant at the time of the instant crime, may be acknowledged, but it is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not apply Article 10 of the Criminal Act to the defendant cannot be deemed to have erred that affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the statutes on legal grounds for reduction of liability.

The crime of this case on each of the allegation of unfair sentencing is committed by the defendant to the elementary school.