The appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the public performance of obscenity, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The argument that the lower court’s failure to deliberate on the basic facts of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, there is no legitimate ground for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act to request a judgment after the expiration of a suspended sentence period, or to request a judgment after the scheduled date of the expiration of the term of the instant sentence, or to receive treatment and custody.

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