The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The grounds of appeal are as follows: (a) the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty, even though the Defendant did not threaten or rape the victim; and (b) the lower court erred by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

However, the recognition of facts, the selection and evaluation of evidence is within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

In light of the record, even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the recognition of the facts exceeded the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

In light of such factual basis, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, which found the Defendant to have committed intimidation and a violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

The argument that the lower court erred by violating Article 51 of the Criminal Act due to the failure to deliberate on the sentencing grounds is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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