1. The part of the judgment below regarding the defendant's case shall be reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years;

3.Provided, That this judgment shall not apply.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the defendant’s case and the part of the case for which the request to attach an attachment order was filed, and as such, there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part for which the request to attach an attachment order

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the application for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the abuse of mental disability by force of a person with mental disability, the defendant was in a state of mental disability by having a large amount of drinking, and the judgment power of the defendant was in a state of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental retardation, namely, the defendant merely dysing the cans which the defendant had been drinking at around 20:00 before the crime was committed, and the prosecutor stated that the defendant was not drunk at the time of the crime, and the defendant specifically memorys the circumstances of the crime, the situation before and after the crime was committed, and specifically stated by the police and the prosecution, it does not seem that the defendant lacks the ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to drinking.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the instant crime is very heavy in that the Defendant committed a similar act against the victim who is a female and a brain salvar with disabilities, and sexual intercourse, and such crime is very heavy.

The victim seems to have been made a great sense of sexual humiliation and mental impulse due to sexual assault from a friendly fluor who has been sexually believed to have been sexually impaired.

On the other hand.