All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One cosmetic (No. 1) which has been seized.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

B. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the defendant's punishment (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year, confiscation, and the completion of sexual assault treatment programs) of the court below is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor appealed from the court below, asserting that it is too unreasonable and unfair.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination, the defendant filed each appeal against the judgment of the court below, and the court decided to concurrently deliberate on the appeal against the judgment of the court below. Each of the offenses against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed within the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

On the other hand, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's defectiveness or mental disability as to the judgment of the court is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.

3. It is recognized that the defendant is a person with a intellectual disability of class 2 with a mental disability, and drinks at the time of committing the crime.

However, in light of various circumstances, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the attitude of reply in this court, such facts alone cannot be deemed to have lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's defectiveness or mental disability argument is without merit.

4. In conclusion, there is no reason for the defendant's mental retardation or mental retardation, but there is no reason for ex officio reversal in the judgment below, so the defendant's unfair sentencing is inappropriate.