The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and the violation of the Child Welfare Act (the coercion, intermediary, sexual harassment, etc. against the child) regarding the 1, 2, and 17 times a year in the list of crimes attached to the first instance judgment.

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 misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the credibility of the victim’s statement.

The argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred in violation of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of responsibility constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 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 that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

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