All appeals are dismissed.

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

1. Examining the legal principles related to the accused case and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the first instance court, the court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape) among the facts charged in the instant case, and of violating the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (Coercive Act), and it is justifiable to issue an order for disclosure, notification, and restriction on employment.

There are no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the unconstitutionality and application of the provisions of the Act relating to the order of disclosure of repeated crime, notification of employment restriction, etc., or the establishment of a crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) and a violation

Defendant

In addition, the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”) asserts that the lower court’s sentence is too heavy, and that limiting the case in which Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act may serve as the ground of unfair sentencing is against the constitutional provisions stipulating the right of citizens to a trial of the Supreme Court and also violates the principle of equality

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the constitutional provision that limits the right of citizens to a trial by the Supreme Court or an unconstitutional provision contrary to the equality principle.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). The Defendant’s above assertion is merely an intention that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty is the death penalty.