The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was physically and mentally deprived of his mental disorder.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the results of factual inquiries about the Gyeong-gu medical corporation of the appellate court on the assertion of mental and physical loss, the fact that the defendant suffered from friendly disorder, depression disorder, etc. for the past one year, and the defendant was found to have been subject to pharmacologic for the last one year, but at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant was in a state that he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

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

B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing reflects the wrongness while committing the crime, and that the Defendant’s consent to the victims of the special intimidation does not require the punishment of the Defendant.

However, the defendant has already been subject to multiple punishment due to violent crimes, violation of road traffic law (drinking driving), and in particular, on January 7, 2016, the Daegu District Court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months on the grounds of special intimidation, etc. and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years on the suspension period, but there is a large degree of criticism in that he again committed the crime of this case.

In full view of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court sentenced the lower court to the statutory minimum sentence that has been mitigated, compared to the first instance court, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit.