The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged and ordering employment restriction on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending

Meanwhile, the lower court rendered a judgment on November 21, 2018, which was subsequent to the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Revised Act”), which was amended by Act No. 15352 on January 16, 2018, and rendered a sentence identical to that of the first instance court pursuant to Articles 3 and 56(1) of the Addenda of the amended Act, and at the same time, issued an employment restriction order for one year to the Defendant, there is no particular disadvantage in relation to the Defendant, rather than maintaining the first instance judgment,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do13367, Oct. 25, 2018). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the lower judgment erred by violating the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

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