1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (use and photographing of cameras, etc.).

In addition, the lower court did not accept the Defendant’s claim on the mental disorder as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The allegation that the lower court erred by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and the fact-finding regarding the basic facts of sentencing constitutes an unfair assertion of sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.