The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court, which found the Defendant guilty of the injury resulting from rape among the facts charged of the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free conviction in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “injury” in the crime of causing rape, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the commencement and suspension of the commission of the crime causing rape, is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is the argument that the Defendant used it as a ground for appeal, or that it was not subject to judgment ex officio by the lower court.

In addition, according to Article 383, Paragraph 4, Article 383 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 allowed to file an appeal on the grounds of

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.

The assertion that an order to disclose or notify personal information for a period of five years against the defendant is unfair shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal as prescribed in 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.