The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting of the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent act by force on relatives) and the violation of the Child Welfare Act (Indecent act by force on a child) 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 the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (indecent act by force by blood relatives

The argument that the court below erred in violation of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of accountability in the sentencing hearing and judgment of sentencing constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

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