The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that convicted of the facts charged of the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on special cases concerning the punishment, etc. of sexual crimes, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of rape

We cannot accept the allegation that the provision restricting employment of children and juveniles-related institutions and welfare facilities for the disabled violates the defendant's freedom to choose occupation and violates the principle of equality and the prohibition of double punishment.

The defendant argues that the court below's punishment is excessive, and that limiting the case where Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act can be deemed as the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing is in violation of the defendant's right to trial and the principle of equality is unconstitutional

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed as unconstitutional provisions that violate the Constitution or violate the principle of equality, which regulates the rights of citizens to be tried by the Supreme Court or Article 101(2) of the Constitution.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Therefore, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is merely an argument that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, and it is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

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