All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter referred to as the “Juvenile Protection Act”), the violation of the Juvenile Sex Protection Act (special rape), the violation of the Juvenile Sex Protection Act (comprehion), the violation of the Juvenile Sex Protection Act (comprehion), and the violation of the Juvenile Sex Protection Act (comprehion, etc.) among the facts charged against Defendant C.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on intention, joint principal

The argument that the lower court erred in violation of Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which stipulates the conditions for sentencing, constitutes an allegation of unfair 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 on the Defendants, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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