The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of

In addition, the lower court rendered a judgment on December 5, 2018, which was subsequent to the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Revised Act”), which was amended by Act No. 15352 on January 16, 2018, and rendered a sentence identical to that of the first instance court pursuant to Articles 3 and 56(1) of the Addenda of the amended Act, and at the same time, issued an employment restriction order for three years, there is no particular disadvantage to the Defendant, rather than maintaining the first instance court judgment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do13367, Oct. 25, 2018). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the lower judgment erred by violating the principle of no punishment without the law, the principle of no punishment without the law, or the principle of no

Meanwhile, under 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the 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.