The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

A sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours is provided to the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the offense indicated in the facts charged, was drunk and was in a state of mental disability, so punishment should be mitigated.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds of appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal.

The lower court sentenced that the seized knife No. 1 (No. 1) was confiscated from the Defendant.

However, according to the records of seizure prepared by judicial police officers and the statement of the victim's statement, the above seized articles are not owned by the defendant, but they were confiscated by the defendant. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is judged below.

B. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined on the claim of mental suffering, the defendant can be found to have committed each of the crimes in this case under drinking while suffering from mental illness such as proof of alcohol. However, in light of the circumstances before and after each of the crimes in this case, the circumstances leading to the crime, the circumstances leading to the crime, the defendant's behavior at the time, and the statement made by the defendant at the investigative agency and the court, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking or proof of alcohol, etc. at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the ground of ex officio reversal as seen above is without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and Article 364 (2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.