The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, or was in a state of having no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, forty hours of completing a sexual assault treatment program, and three years of notification of disclosure of personal information) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the records of judgment on the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant was drunk at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the person was suffering from mental illness or suffering from mental illness.

In addition, mental disorder stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act is a biological element, and it is necessary to say that mental disorder such as mental disorder or abnormal mental state lacks or reduces the ability to distinguish things from mental disorder and the ability to control action accordingly. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder is a person with normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, it cannot be viewed as mental disorder if he/she had normal ability to discern things or control action. The phenomenon where he/she committed a crime because he/she failed to suppress his/her impulse is likely to be found at all times. Unless there are special circumstances, it cannot be said that a person with the above mental defect requires acts that cannot be expected to control his/her impulse and demand compliance with the law, and thus, the defect such as shock disorder, in principle, does not constitute a mental disorder that is a cause for reduction or exemption of punishment, unless there are special circumstances, such as where it can be deemed that the person with mental disorder is equal to the person with mental disorder originally within its original meaning due to a very serious mental disorder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7900 Decided February 8, 2007 and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867 Decided February 26, 2009, etc.).

However, the background, process, means and method of each of the crimes in this case, and the defendant before and after the crimes.