Even if the lower court sentenced a judgment on September 19, 2018, which was subsequent to the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Revised Act”), which was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018, sentenced the Defendant to the same punishment as the first instance judgment pursuant to Articles 3 and 56(1) of the Addenda of the amended Act, and issued an employment restriction order for one year at the same time, the lower court did not have any particular disadvantage to the Defendant, rather than maintaining the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do1367, Oct. 25, 2018). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the prohibition of disadvantageous change.

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.