The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the part of the instant facts charged was guilty.

The lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

The ground of appeal that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical weakness is not a legitimate ground of appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground of appeal that the Defendant only claims for the grounds of appeal that the lower court did not have determined ex officio.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate 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.