Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Juvenile Protection Act”) (distribution, etc. of obscene materials”) among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “production” in the crime of violating the Juvenile Sex Protection Act (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials).

The argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error in the method of examining the sentencing and determining the sentencing is ultimately unfair.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an 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.