Considering the importance of legal interests protected under Article 12(1)2 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “instant legal provisions”), the illegality and quality of the act of mediating the sexual traffic of children and juveniles, the necessity of criminal policy, and the inevitability of uniform age definition as an objective disciplinary chart of children and juveniles, etc., the imprisonment for a period of at least seven years as prescribed by the instant legal provisions cannot be deemed to be an excessive punishment contrary to the principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment. Since the act of mediating the sexual traffic of children and juveniles continues to create and supply demand and supply of the sexual traffic due to the characteristics of repeated, continuous and profit-making nature, the illegality exceeds the mere intermediary act conducted once without the intention of repeated and continuous mediation, the difference between the crime of simple mediation and the statutory punishment cannot be deemed to violate the principle of equality, contrary to the principle of equality and punishment.

(See Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga1 decided Oct. 25, 2011). The allegation in the grounds of appeal that the legal provision of this case is unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

Meanwhile, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred in violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment on sentencing and the principle of proportionality is not different from the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment

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