Examining the evidence of the first instance court’s adoption maintained by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the School Health Act among the facts charged in the instant case based on its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may only be lodged by death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence was imposed on the defendant, an appeal is not allowed to be filed with the Supreme Court on the ground

In addition, the argument that the time of committing the act of arranging sexual traffic differs from the time of committing the act of arranging sexual traffic, and that there was no awareness that the act prohibited in school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone was conducted, shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal as it is alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant as the ground for appeal

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