1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years;

3. Sexual assault against the defendant for 120 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment (eight years of imprisonment) imposed by the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order and the person who requested the attachment order and the person who requested the attachment order and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) for the treatment and custody warrant (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) Since the Defendant, who was found to have dismissed the request for attachment order, committed several times against the victim of kinship, the risk of repeating sexual crimes is high.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the defendant's request for attachment order.

2. Determination

A. (Ex officio determination) prior to determining the grounds for appeal against the part of the case against the Defendant, the appraiser L, who made a mental appraisal to the Defendant, cannot make an appropriate decision due to the Defendant’s “a mental retardation,” and considerable difficulties in logical decision-making and decision-making, etc., presented the opinion that the above disability at the time of committing the crime of this case, would have caused the lack of ability to discern things or make decisions.

In full view of the motive and background of the instant crime, the content of the statement in the investigative agency, and the attitude of the statement in this court, which can be acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant deemed that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the “scopic mental retardation” at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, even though the punishment should be mitigated as necessary under Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act against the defendant, the court below did not recognize mental and physical weakness and did not reduce the punishment. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts affecting the judgment or by misapprehending the legal principles.

(b).