1. Review of the record on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant reveals that the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and only asserted mental and physical weakness and unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, the part of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal stating that “the Defendant committed the instant crime in the state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness (e.g., drunken or mental or physical weakness)” is stated only in such assertion, but did not state specific reasons therefor. Thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is just that the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the public prosecution on the ground that the procedure for instituting a public prosecution violates the provisions of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the delivery and validity of the decision of revoking a protective disposition, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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