The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Considering the importance and legislative purpose of the legal interests protected under Article 7(5) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “instant legal provisions”), and the need for the protection of juveniles, it is difficult to view that the imprisonment with labor for life or for not less than five years, as stipulated in the instant legal provisions, is an excessive penalty against the principle of proportionality between the responsibility and the punishment.

The ground of appeal that the legal provision of this case is unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that there is an error of mistake in the judgment of the court below shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of discretionary mitigation even though the defendant made a deposit on behalf of the victim constitutes an allegation 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 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 defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable cannot

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