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 reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not obliged to exercise the duty of care to install a warning sign so that the visitors to the elective learning site may recognize the risks of omission into the flag, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation in the grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

The grounds of appeal are the purport of disputing the fact-finding, which is the basis of the judgment of the court of fact-finding, and 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

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational duty of care or by exceeding the bounds of the principle

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