1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of

In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on special quasi-rape under Article 4(3) and (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on special quasi-rape under Article 299 of the Criminal

2. Even if the lower court rendered a judgment on November 27, 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 issued an employment restriction order at the same time with the imposition of a judgment pursuant to Articles 3 and 56(1) of the Addenda to the amended Act, the lower court did not have any particular disadvantage to the Defendant, rather than maintaining the first instance judgment, in light of the background and content of the amendment of the relevant provisions

(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.

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