According to Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, when there is a violation of the Constitution, Acts, orders or rules affecting the judgment (subparagraph 1), the abolition or modification of a punishment or amnesty after the judgment, when there is a reason for the request for a retrial (subparagraph 2), when there is a reason for the request for a retrial (subparagraph 3), death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years, when the judgment has affected the conclusion of the judgment or when there is a significant reason for recognizing that the amount of the punishment has been extremely unfair (subparagraph 4), the grounds for appeal against

According to the records, the defendant stated in the notice of the grounds of appeal that "the court below violated the Constitution, laws, orders, and rules, or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment," and did not state specific reasons. Thus, this cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal.

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is permitted only when the court below rendered a death penalty, an indefinite term, or an imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a minor punishment, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence is unfair

In addition, the defendant's assertion that he knows is merely an error in the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below as a fact-finding court, and thus cannot be deemed a legitimate

Furthermore, examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance that the court below maintained, it is just to find the court below guilty of all indecent acts among the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its holding, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

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