Defendant

B The grounds of appeal by the court below did not contain any participation or instruction in the damage of the entrance doors of the co-defendant A and C of the court of first instance, but the defendant conspireds against the rules of evidence by violating the rules of evidence.

The judgment of the court below is illegal because it was recognized.

In fact, this is not a legitimate ground for appeal, that is, the recognition of facts belonging to the lower court’s exclusive authority, the selection of evidence, and evaluation.

The judgment below

In light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s finding of the facts exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The above defendant's assertion that the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles against the rules of evidence with regard to the circumstances which are conditions for sentencing constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a fine is imposed against the above defendant, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The grounds of appeal by Defendant D (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined.

Defendant

D’s ground of appeal is that the judgment of the court below is unlawful because it erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, by Defendant D’s rejection of seals or writing with the consent of the sectional owners of J buildings.

The recognition of facts, the selection and evaluation of evidence is within the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

(b) reasons.