Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the first instance court, which recognized that the Defendant acquired the goods in question, was justifiable, and rejected the allegation in the grounds of appeal, such as misconception of facts, based on the determination that the Defendant acquired the goods in question, by being aware of the fact that the goods in question were not owned by the said company, at the time when the Defendant purchased the said goods from F, and was aware of the fact that the goods in question were in custody by being entrusted by the victims.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the facts charged by the court below is merely an error of the judgment of the court below as to the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the fact-finding court

In addition, even when examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the legal principles as indicated in the lower judgment and the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the acquisition of stolen goods and the selection of suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

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