The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had a mental and physical loss or mental weak condition under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

However, in light of the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s movement at the time of committing the instant crimes, the Defendant’s usual amount (3-4 illness, evidence record No. 22), the means and method of committing the instant crimes, and the circumstances after committing the instant crimes, etc., the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

It is difficult to see it.

The defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court 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). The fact that the Defendant recognized the crime and is against the mistake, that there is no record of criminal history of the same crime and criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and that there is no effort for agreement, etc. are favorable circumstances.

However, in light of the degree of the type of force used by the Defendant and the specific form of action, the degree of indecent act is not somewhat weak, and the age victim seems to have caused considerable sexual humiliation and mental suffering due to the instant crime, and sought a severe punishment against the Defendant.

The lower court appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of all the above circumstances, and compared to the lower court’s decision because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.