Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case, and ordered the Defendant to disclose information for ten years.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence and records duly admitted by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles as to erroneous facts or indecent act by compulsion and injury.

In addition, Article 8(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11088, Nov. 17, 2011) that applies only to the grounds pointed out in the ground of appeal cannot be deemed unconstitutional. In addition, even after examining the records, the first instance court and the lower court’s litigation procedure did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment is unreasonable

Other grounds of appeal by the defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.