For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that convicted of the instant facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept of “indecent act” in the crime of specific facts charged, trial principle on evidence, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of indecent act by compulsion, omission

In addition, the issue of whether to adopt the application for examination of evidence may not be examined when the court deems it unnecessary at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7947, Jan. 27, 201). Thus, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s application for examination of evidence cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that it did not

Furthermore, even if examined in light of the record, the lower court did not err by infringing the Defendant’s right of defense and the right of counsel.

Meanwhile, according to Article 383 subparagraph 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 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 to the effect that the sentence is too unreasonable cannot be

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