The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below was just in finding the defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on "business" under Article 15 (1) 2 of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to "business" under Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Youth from Sexual Abuse, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to joint principal offenders.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not legitimate grounds for

In addition, Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act which limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing does not infringe the right of citizens to be tried or violate the principle of equality.

We cannot accept the argument that this provision is unconstitutional.

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