The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) among the selective charges of this case, on the grounds that the Defendant attempted to rape the victim by threatening 13 years of age to her parents as if she were informed of the fact of sexual traffic, but her attempted to rape.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the recognition of intimidation and the commencement of enforcement in the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

In addition, pursuant 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 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 amount of punishment is unreasonable

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