The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the instant facts charged were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err 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 attempted suspension.

Meanwhile, the argument that there was the consent of the victim under Article 24 of the Criminal Act at the time of the crime of this case is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant asserted that there was no decision by the court below on the ground of appeal or that there was no decision by the court below as the object

In addition, the argument that the lower court erred by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of responsibility is an unfair argument in sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 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 has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

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