The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defense counsel;

A. The Defendant, at the time of each of the instant crimes, was in a state of mental or physical disability or mental disability by drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and the lower court erred by misapprehending it.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant commits each of the instant crimes against the mistake of unfair sentencing, drinking alcohol, and contingently commits each of the instant crimes, the damage caused by the damage to property, and the Defendant’s failure to complete a sexual assault treatment program program program for six months and forty hours, etc., the sentence of the lower court, which sentenced to an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 6 months and forty hours, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following factors: (a) the process leading up to each of the instant crimes, the means and methods of committing the crime; (b) the Defendant’s act before and after committing the crime; and (c) the circumstances after committing the crime acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court; (c) it is not deemed that the Defendant was aware that drinking was at the time of committing the crime, but did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not apply Article 10(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to have erred that affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the statutes on the grounds for statutory exemption from liability. Therefore, this part of

B. The Defendant’s wrong determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s act of drinking alcohol and contingently committed each of the instant crimes, the damage caused by the crime of causing property damage is relatively minor and the damage recovery therefrom seems to have been made on a relatively minor basis; the Defendant’s disabilities of class 3 as a basic living recipient, who was detained in the lower court and was detained for three months, and each of the instant crimes is concurrent crimes with the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) for which the judgment became final and conclusive.