The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of rape, bodily injury resulting from special confinement, and bodily injury resulting from confinement among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

There is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by violating the principle of presumption of innocence and the principle

In addition, the issue of whether to adopt the application for examination of evidence and whether to resume closed pleadings falls under the court's discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3282, Oct. 10, 2003; 2014Do1414, Apr. 24, 2014). The lower court rejected the Defendant's application for examination of evidence or rejected the Defendant's application for resumption of pleadings after the closure of pleadings.

in this case, it is not illegal.

In addition, the argument that there was an error in the procedure for examining the witness of the first instance trial is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since the defendant alleged that it was the ground for appeal or that the court below did not consider it as the object of judgment ex officio.

B. The argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of the principle of balance of punishment and the principle of responsibility, and in the misapprehension of the limit of the discretion of sentencing, is ultimately an unfair argument of sentencing.

Accordingly, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in the instant case where a minor sentence is imposed against the Defendant, the argument that the above assertion and the punishment are unfair because they are too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.