All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, it is justifiable for the lower court to have found the Defendant guilty of the instant conjunctive charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In doing so, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of free evaluation due to violating logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children from Sexual Abuse or a modification of indictment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that punishment is too heavy is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance that found the prosecutor guilty of the primary facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning and found the same not guilty.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles on crimes of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children from Sexual Abuse (e.g., deceptive scheme).

The prosecutor also appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment below, but the notice of appeal does not indicate the grounds for appeal, nor find the reasons for objection even in the notice of appeal.

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