For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court issued an employment restriction order with child and juvenile-related institutions, etc. and welfare facilities for the disabled for each three years.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the credibility of the victim’s statement, mental disability, and the risk of

In the judgment of the court below, there is an error of misconception of facts about the basic facts for sentencing.

The argument that there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for disqualification for suspended sentence is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, 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 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.