The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness at the time of committing each of the instant crimes due to a mental disorder that could not properly determine and thinking.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, three years of disclosure or notification order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case as to the assertion of mental disorder, even though the defendant is deemed to be a disabled person of Grade III intellectual disability, considering such circumstances, the defendant's ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above intellectual disability at the time of the crime cannot be deemed to have reached a state where the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things due to the above intellectual disability at the time of the crime. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant recognized the facts of the facts charged in the instant case, and that the defendant is a disabled person with intellectual disability 3. Meanwhile, the crime of this case is not that of entering a female toilet in order to hear the sex of the defendant with the aim of meeting his sexual desire or to see the appearance of the crime of this case, but it is not easy to say that the defendant entered the instant female toilet for the purpose of meeting his sexual desire, and the frequency of the crime of this case is not certain, and the defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the repeated crime due to intrusion upon the same structure, and committed the instant crime without being able to have been punished for a repeated crime due to larceny, such as one time of suspended sentence, two times of fine, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's character, conduct, environment, etc., and thus, it is not recognized that the punishment of the court below is unfair because it is too too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.