The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the result of the mental appraisal of the defendant in the judgment of the court below, even if the defendant at the time of each of the crimes in this case was found to have a state of mental disability, the court below erred in not recognizing it.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the participation in sexual assault treatment programs with four years of imprisonment and 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the claim of mental disability, the mental disorder provided for in Article 10 of the Criminal Act requires that the mental disorder, such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, other than mental disorder, caused by such mental disorder, lack or decrease in the ability to discern things or control action accordingly. Thus, even if a person with mental disability was a person with normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, the mental disorder cannot be deemed a mental disorder if he/she had the ability to discern things and control action. In such a case, whether to recognize mental disorder can be determined independently by the court by taking into account the degree and contents of the mental disorder, motive and cause of the crime, motive and reason of the crime, circumstances and means of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, the fact and degree of memory of the situation before and after the crime, and attitude in the investigation procedure, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12689, Jan. 24, 2013).

It is presumed that there has been a eromatic disorder after cerebral eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic ero

In addition, it seems that the defendant was somewhat unable to understand the legal and social meaning of his act, and at the time of committing the crime, the ability to distinguish the object and its social meaning.