The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of the instant facts charged.

In so determining, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of joint principals, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure only applies to “when it is evident that there exists any error in the wrong calculation, entry, or other similar errors in the written judgment” (Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court’s correction to add “(the act of arranging commercial sex acts)” to “(the act of arranging commercial sex acts (the act of arranging commercial sex acts)” under the proviso to Article 33 of the Criminal Act and Article 50 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranginging Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. under the proviso to Article 19(1)1 of the Criminal Act is justifiable, on the ground that the first instance court added the portion omitted by simple mistake, and does not substantially change the contents of the judgment of the first instance.

As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding accomplices and status under Article 33 of the Criminal Act, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the rectification of judgment, thereby affecting the conclusion

According to Article 383 (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 declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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