The appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of both violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation due to violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation due to misapprehending the legal principles on “business”

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance between crimes and the principle of responsibility, is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

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