When the appellate court reverses the judgment of the first instance on the grounds that are not included in the reasons for appeal, it determined that the reasons for the unfair appeal for sentencing alleged by the appellant was also determined in the process of determining the punishment.

In addition, it did not specify the decision as to the legitimacy of the grounds for appeal.

failure to make any judgment;

In light of the records, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment ex officio, and determined a sentence against the Defendant following pleadings, on the ground that it is necessary to deliberate and decide whether to issue an employment restriction order at the same time with the judgment, etc. pursuant to Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse, which was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018.

Therefore, the court below did not separately decide on the defendant's reasons for the defendant's unfair appeal.

There is an error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, 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 imposed, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against 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.