1. As to the grounds of appeal on mistake of facts, the recognition of facts should 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 was justifiable to recognize the fact that the Defendant detained the victim as stated in the facts of the first instance trial, and committed assault or cruel acts, thereby causing the death of the victim, and rejected the grounds for appeal as to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles of the accused disputing such determination.

The part of the ground of appeal disputing such a determination by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the evidence selection and probative value, which belong to the free judgment by the fact-finding court.

In addition, even when examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the relevant legal doctrine as seen in the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding constructive acceptance and the grounds for the exclusion of illegality, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the number of crimes, the gist of this part of the grounds of appeal is that the act of assault is absorption into the crime of heavy confinement, and it cannot be deemed that the act of assault constitutes the crime of serious confinement, and if the victim died, it should be deemed that the crime of serious death is absorption into the crime of serious death of confinement. However, it is unlawful for the court below to recognize that the two crimes are in a commercial concurrent relationship, separate from the crime of serious death of confinement.