The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “sexual abuse” in the crime of violation of the Child Welfare Act (voluntary coercion of a child, sexual harassment, etc.).

The Defendant asserts that Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, violates the principle of excessive prohibition, thereby infringing the right to trial and violating the principle of equality.

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is included in the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. Thus, the said provision is not in violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea or the Constitution that provides the right of citizens to a trial by the Supreme Court or is unconstitutional provision that is contrary to the principle of equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007; 2017Do2604, Apr. 26, 2017). This constitutes an assertion 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 with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for

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