According to the records, in the statement of grounds of appeal, the Defendant asserted a mistake of facts that “the entry into the toilet without thought is not an entry of the victim”, and the Defendant did not clearly withdraw such assertion of mistake on the first trial date of the lower court, but did not clearly withdraw such assertion of mistake, the lower court can be found to have dismissed the Defendant’s appeal only by deeming the Defendant’s grounds for appeal as an unreasonable sentencing argument, and without rendering a decision

However, in light of the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance, it is just that the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes among the facts charged in this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of law of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Thus, the omission of judgment by the court of first instance does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed, and thus, in this case where a fine is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the

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