The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

It is unreasonable that the court below rejected the crime of this case, even though the defendant of mental disability committed the crime of this case under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental fissionation.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

In light of the method, motive, and circumstance of the crime committed by the illegal defendant exempted from disclosure, the relationship with the victim, etc., it is unreasonable that the court below failed to issue an order to disclose or notify the personal information of the defendant, in the absence of special circumstances that may not disclose or notify the personal information of the defendant.

Judgment

The existence of mental disorder in Article 10 of the Criminal Act as to the defendant's claim of mental disorder is a legal issue to be judged by the court in light of the purpose, etc. of the punishment system. In such judgment, the result of the mental diagnosis of the professional appraiser is an important reference material. However, the court is not bound by the opinion, but must independently determine the existence of mental disorder by taking into account not only the result of such appraisal but also all the materials on the records such as the background, means, and the defendant's behavior before

In light of the details and contents of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior and attitude before and after the instant crime, etc., it is not recognized that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability due to mental fissionation, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

Since an attempted crime of determining unfair sentencing is an attempted crime, the sentencing guidelines are not applicable.

The defendant and the prosecutor's argument are also examined.

The defendant has intruded the residence of the victim known to him for several years, and has been forced to be exempted from the clothes of the victim who satisfly resisted.