The defendant's assertion of mistake is merely an error of the judgment of the court below on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

In addition, even if the grounds alleged in the grounds of appeal are examined in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment that found the Defendant guilty of rape among the facts charged of this case by violating the principle of presumption of innocence, logical and empirical rules, and by exceeding the bounds of

Discretionary mitigation stipulated in Article 53 of the Criminal Act is merely a court’s discretionary mitigation of punishment when there are grounds to consider the circumstances of the crime, and the court below did not reduce the punishment.

Even if it cannot be deemed unlawful, the argument that violation of law without discretionary mitigation is illegal constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without 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 determination of the sentence by the court below, including the above argument

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