The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of robbery, attempted rape, and violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, among the facts charged in the instant case, and did not set the short-term period as the registration period by applying Article 45(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, on the grounds that the period of registration

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 intent to illegally obtain and commit robbery in the crime of attempted rape, or by violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.).

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the record, it is justifiable that the court below sentenced the disclosure order and notification order for seven years on the ground that there are no special circumstances that the defendant should not disclose personal information.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors.

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 is allowed

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.