1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case (excluding the part dismissing the prosecution of the first instance court) on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and did not recognize mental and physical disorder.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

According to 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed.

Defendant

In this case where a probation order requester (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") is sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, ordered the Defendant to be put on probation for five years by deeming that the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes exists.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending

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