The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In the decision of the court below, the 4th order of the judgment below is the "degree of Sexual Assault Treatment."

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mental and physical disorder caused the instant public performance, obscenity, and the instant crime of intrusion on a structure in a reconceptic state due to the administration of phiphonephones.

B. In relation to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the holding of philophones, it is unreasonable to punish the defendant on the ground that the defendant possessed philophones before it.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of 200,000 won, and 40 hours of an order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides that “The provisions of the preceding two paragraphs shall not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a person’s mental disorder as a person.” This provision includes not only an intentional act but also an act of free in the cause due to negligence, and it can be predicted that the occurrence of danger was caused by a person’s mental disorder even though he/she could have predicted the occurrence of danger.”

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do99 delivered on July 28, 1992). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant could have predicted that the defendant, who had been subject to criminal punishment by administering a phiphone several times in the past, was at risk of undermining neighboring people's legal interests when administering a phiphone, even though he could have predicted that the phiphone would pose a risk of undermining the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp, and

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

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine reveals that the Defendant administered part of the philophones in his possession and the remainder of the philophones in the decilization condition.