All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records of the accused case, the accused and the requester for probation order (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts as to mental disorder is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

The argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing contains incomplete deliberation, deviation from the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and misapprehension of legal principles constitutes an unreasonable sentencing

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 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 imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court maintained the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to be put on probation for three years, deeming that the risk of recidivism of sexual assault crimes exists.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

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