1. According to the records on the accused case, the accused and the person requesting the probation order (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

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

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. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record as to the request for probation order, it is justifiable for the lower court to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to be placed on probation for three years after considering the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes, and there is no error of law as otherwise 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.