1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the first instance court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to Defendant A’s grounds for appeal, the lower court’s determination that Defendant A was guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children from Sexual Abuse among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “business” under Article 15(1)2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse, by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant C’s appeal in light of the first instance court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court, on October 201, 2014, which was set forth as the date and time of the crime in the instant facts charged, joined the organization by Defendant C with the purpose of crime

The decision is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding relevant legal principles by exceeding the limit of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where Defendant C’s minor punishment is imposed, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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