The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime with mental disorder, the Defendant had mental and physical weakness due to intellectual disability and drinking.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (four years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., acknowledged by the evidence examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is not deemed that the Defendant, as a disabled person of Grade III with intellectual disability, was under drinking at the time of the crime, but the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Article 20 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes need not apply to cases where a sexual crime was committed in the state of mental disorder caused by drinking or drugs, even though the defendant was in a state of mental or physical weakness caused by drinking.

Article 10(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act is not applicable to the above crime, as long as the Defendant committed the crime of rape against the victim as committing a sexual crime, and as long as he took the state of drinking due to drinking at the time, it is reasonable to apply Article 10(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act to the above crime

The defendant's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s reasoning, as the materials for new sentencing have not been submitted in the first instance trial, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s reasoning.