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 preparation of evidence and the 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). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant purchased the evidence without sufficiently verifying whether it was stolen or not, and rejected the allegation of the grounds for appeal as to misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of facts by the lower court, and it is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, in light of the evidence duly admitted, the reasoning of the lower court’s reasoning is partially inappropriate, but there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the duty of care for the crime of acquiring water from office chief or office chief, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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