The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

Notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders as there is no interest in appeal as to the part of the case for which the request for attachment order was filed, the lower court rendered a judgment that dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case for which the request for attachment order was filed. This part is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

(1) The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was under the influence of alcohol and was in the state of being deprived of or lacking of the ability to discern things and make decisions. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was under the influence of alcohol.

The sentence of imprisonment (five years of imprisonment, 100 hours of order) imposed by the court below on the accused of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder on the board, the defendant may be found to have drinking at the time of the instant crime, but in light of the fact that the defendant made a relatively detailed statement about the circumstances leading to the instant crime or the victim’s condition, etc., it is not deemed that the defendant was in a state or weak state when he was under the influence of alcohol to discern things and make decisions.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the instant crime ought to be punished by strict punishment for the Defendant, considering the following: (a) the Defendant committed rape with his/her duty to rear and protect the victims of de facto kinship by neglecting his/her duty to rear and protect them; and (b) the nature of the relevant crime is inferior; and (c) the Defendant’s mental impulse and post-treatment are not significant due to the Defendant’s criminal act.

However, the defendant has the same criminal records or suspended execution.