Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal - The Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) to the part of the damage of property (hereinafter “Defendant”) are true between the place of crime, but did not have damaged the instant passenger car, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing an indecent act against a minor under the age of 13.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the part of the instant case, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that the Defendant’s assertion under the title “2. Property damage” in detail is recognized as a fact of damage to the Defendant’s property. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as alleged by the

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

Even if the Defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol to a certain extent at the time of committing an indecent act by force against a minor under the age of 13, in full view of various circumstances, such as the background of the above crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking alcohol at the time of the crime.

does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

The defendant's judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing recognizes the remainder of the crime except for the crime of damage to the property of this case.