For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and rejected the Defendant’s assertion on mental disability.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental health

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and argued misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, mental disability, and unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal, but withdrawn the allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first trial date

In such a case, the assertion that there was no intention of indecent act by compulsion cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

According 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

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