The issue is first of all, that the lower court erred in its fact-finding regarding the Defendants’ violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (inciting for profit) and Defendant C’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) among the facts charged in the instant case.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules.

In light of the records, in this case where it is not possible to find out that the facts established by the court below exceeded the above limit, the above appeal is merely to criticize the matters falling under the exclusive authority of the court below, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, the Defendants’ assertion that the protocol of statement by the police against AA is inadmissible as evidence and the Defendant’s assertion of misconception of facts as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint violence) is not legitimate grounds for appeal, since the Defendants’ assertion that the protocol of statement by the police against A is inadmissible as evidence or the lower court did not consider it as being subject

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparag. 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 Defendants, an appeal to the Supreme Court is not allowed

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