The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant facts charged was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on forced indecent act.

Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall require the defendant to bear all or part of the costs of trial when a sentence is pronounced.

Article 191 (1) of the same Act provides that "where litigation procedures are completed by court, the defendant shall be required to bear litigation costs ex officio."

As stipulated in the above, since the burden of litigation costs is not imposed but should be assessed in accordance with the punishment in a substantial sense, there is no application of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do872, Apr. 24, 2001, etc.). The first instance court did not render a judgment ordering the Defendant to bear the costs of witness among the costs of lawsuit in the first instance court and the costs of lawsuit in the lower court, so it is just to order the Defendant to bear the costs of appraisal among the costs of lawsuit in the first instance court and the costs of lawsuit in the lower court, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of

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