The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant allowed the defendant to have access to the victim (the 13 years of age) by using the account in the name of the deceased, and then sent a physical photograph of the body in the form of body to the defendant by threatening "I will do so by so," etc., and thereafter, by threatening "I will spread a photo of the body sent without showing the form of her own," etc., so that the victim frightly allowed the defendant to put the body part of the body, such as fingers, etc. or implements, into his sexual flag, and let the defendant show the face of the body in the form of visual currency."

In addition, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (similar act) by citing the legal doctrine of the Supreme Court Decision 2016Do17733 Decided February 8, 2018.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, 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 the establishment of crimes, without exhaust all necessary deliberations.

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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on 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.