The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court and the first instance court, it is justifiable to maintain the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of all of the charges of assault, special assault, violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special rape), violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and intimidation around January 26, 2017, and violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “ intentional act” of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (using camera, etc.) or “Intimidation” of intimidation, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “Intimidation” of the crime,

In addition, according to Article 383 (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, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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