The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted the Defendant of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials).

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 in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “production of child or juvenile pornography” under Article 11(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

Meanwhile, the argument that statutory penalty under Article 11(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse is so excessive that it goes against the principle of no punishment without law is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

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.