The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes among the instant charges.

Since the fact-finding and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted based on it belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless they exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court that maintained the reasoning of the judgment below, there is no ground to believe that the judgment of the court below exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Thus, this part of the ground of appeal

In addition, the ground of appeal to the effect that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to excessive defense among the judgment below regarding murder, is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not regard it as the ground of appeal or make it subject

Furthermore, even if the record is examined, there is no error of law as alleged above in the judgment below.

On the other hand, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing contains an error of law that deviates from discretion in sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, under 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, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the above assertion or other argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot

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