On September 12, 2018, after 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, the lower court rendered a judgment and issued an employment restriction order at the same time as the judgment was rendered pursuant to Articles 3 and 56(1) of the Addenda of the amended Act, in light of the developments leading up to and details of the amendment of the relevant provisions, there is no particular disadvantage 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 ground of appeal that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years has been pronounced, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment of the court below has influenced the judgment

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is rendered against the defendant, the argument of the violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, and misapprehension of legal principles as to fact-finding is merely a dispute over the judgment of the court below as to the choice of evidence and probative value, or the fact-finding based thereon.

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