The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (the mental and physical weak and unfair sentencing);

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 3 years, 6 months and 40 hours of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant: (a) even though he was aware of a large amount of alcohol at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol, on the following grounds: (b) the background and means of the instant crime; (c) the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime; (d) the process of disputing the victim at the time of the instant crime; and (c) the process of the Defendant’s assaulting the victim; and (d) the victim’s cell phone at the time of the instant case, which the victim reported to the police at the time of the instant case, destroyed the victim’s cell phone.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on a reasonable and appropriate scope, there exists a unique area of the first deliberation in our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to impose a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment.