1. Defendant case

A. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”), an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence is unfair is not legitimate.

Furthermore, the argument that the extension of the period of disclosure order does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendant guilty on the ground that there was no proof of crime as to each of the facts charged in the instant case’s violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse among the facts charged. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as

2. As long as a prosecutor files an appeal against a prosecuted case regarding the case claiming an attachment order, the appeal is deemed to have been filed regarding the case claiming the attachment order, but the appellate brief does not state the grounds for appeal and does not state the grounds for appeal in the appellate brief.

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