1. The argument that the defendant's case contains an error of law in violation of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of liability due to incomplete deliberation on the basic facts of sentencing in the judgment of sentencing by the court below constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on a person who requested probation order (hereinafter “defendant”), the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the case of probation order request, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, ordered the Defendant to be put on probation for three years by deeming that the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes exists.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

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