The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although it is recognized that the defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had a weak state of the ability to discern things or make decisions, it is improper for the court below to recognize the defendant as a mental disability.

In light of the mental suffering suffered by the victim due to the instant crime claiming unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

In light of the fact that the nature of the crime of this case was poor in light of the contents of the crime of this case, the victim wants punishment, etc., it is unfair for the court below to exempt the disclosure order of personal information.

Judgment

First of all, we examine the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that mitigation of mental disorder is improper.

According to the alcohol of the victim and witness F, the lower court determined that “the Defendant was in a weak state of ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol,” and that the Defendant was in a weak state of ability to discern things or make decisions.

However, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are revealed: ① The mother of the victim stated that “I am supper, I am supper, and her husband together with the Defendant, but the Defendant was drinking before supper (Evidence No. 55, No. 123 of the trial record); and ② the victim stated that “I am unable to identify a person at the time or was unable to memory her actions” (No. 123 of the trial record); and ② the victim stated that “I am to the extent that I am son’s actions at the time” at the court of the court below (No. 15 of the trial record).