The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes due to attempted indecent act by force, which is the preliminary charge of this case, based on its reasoning. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to "sane or failing to resist" in the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the inherent limits of sentencing discretion by misunderstanding facts about the conditions of sentencing or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby violating the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of accountability, constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 not less 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 above assertion is

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