1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was guilty of all the charges of this case (excluding the portion without charge) on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. 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 the crime of larceny, or by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intentional act of larceny, the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is just to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty on the ground that there was no proof of the crime against forced indecent act among the facts charged in the instant case, and to find the defendant not guilty. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by violating the principle of free evaluation

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