The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical weakness by taking the alcohol and medicine at the time of the instant crime, so the punishment ought to be mitigated.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the background and method of the instant crime, Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime was committed, and circumstances after the instant crime were acknowledged as having been committed by the lower court based on the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant was physically and mentally weak by taking the drug at the time of the instant crime. However, according to the evidence, it is also recognized that the Defendant was aware that he was unable to take the drug while taking the drug, and was in a state of mental and physical weakness by taking the drug even though he was aware of the fact that the Defendant was in a state of de

This is a case where the defendant predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a mental disorder by his or her own, and thus it cannot be subject to legal mitigation.

B. The fact that the crime of this case is not somewhat weak to determine the illegality of sentencing, and that the Defendant’s execution of imprisonment due to a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (marijuana) as indicated in the judgment is committed after being released from the prison, and then constitutes a repeated offense, thereby constituting a repeated offense, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the circumstances that may be considered in the course of committing the crime, the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and against the defendant, that the defendant agrees with the victim E, that the amount of damage caused by damage to public goods has been repaid, and that other conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, are too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and the judgment of the court below.