The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months and by a fine of up to two million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Since the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, committed each of the instant crimes under the influence of mental and physical loss or mental weakness, he cannot be punished for the Defendant, or his punishment should be mitigated.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspended sentence of two years, the fine of two million won, and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment program is too unreasonable).

B. A prosecutor 1) In fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal principles sought confiscation of one smartphone (S6) owned by the Defendant, which was provided by a prosecutor to commit a crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kamera, etc.) (No. 1), the lower court omitted the sentence of confiscation.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder, although the Defendant was in a drunken state at the time of each of the instant crimes, it is deemed that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes, in full view of the circumstances leading to each of the instant crimes, the means and methods of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances before and after each of the instant crimes.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) Since the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements for the confiscation should be left at the discretion of the court of response. However, it is subject to restriction by the proportional principle applicable to the general penalty.

In order to determine whether confiscation violates the principle of proportionality, the degree and scope used in the commission of the crime, the importance of the crime, the owner of the goods, etc. shall occupy in the commission of the crime.