The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of violation of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, the first instance court sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 30 million,00,000,000, prior to the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “amended Act”), which was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018.

If the judgment of the first instance becomes final and conclusive without filing an appeal, according to the special provisions of Article 4 or 5 of the Addenda to the amended Act, the defendant is restricted from employment for one year at child or juvenile-related institutions.

However, the lower court sentenced the Defendant who committed a sex offense against a child or juvenile prior to the enforcement date of the amended Act, and sentenced a fine of KRW 20 million to the Defendant who committed the sex offense against the child or juvenile at the same time pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda of the amended Act and Article 56(1) of the amended Act.

Therefore, while the judgment of the court of first instance is maintained as it is, the judgment of the court below cannot be considered as a more unfavorable judgment against the defendant.

The allegation in the ground of appeal that the lower judgment erred by violating the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration is not acceptable.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant facts charged was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, 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 against logical and empirical rules

In addition, 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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the determination of the sentence is unfair.