All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment in relation to the Defendant’s case, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in violation of Article 51 of the Criminal Act in determining the sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Defendant

In this case where a requester for an order to observe a protective order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") is sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate appeal.

2. As to the case of the claim for protection observation order, in a case where the defendant files a final appeal against the defendant's case, the case of the claim for protection observation order shall be regarded as filing a final appeal.

However, it is not possible to find out that there is no reason to object to the petition of appeal or the statement of reason for appeal.

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