The lower court rendered a judgment on September 12, 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, Jan. 16, 2018 (hereinafter “the Act”), and simultaneously issued a judgment pursuant to Articles 3 and 56(1) of the Addenda to the amended Act, and Article 56(1) of the Addenda to the amended Act, does not have any particular disadvantage to the Defendant, rather than maintaining the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do1367, Oct. 25, 2018). The allegation in the grounds of appeal that the lower judgment erred by violating the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change, cannot be accepted.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on sentencing is ultimately unfair.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal shall be allowed 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 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.