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). The court below rejected the defendant's allegation in the grounds of appeal as to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, by recognizing that the court of first instance, which recognized that the defendant was functional control over the defendant's functional act through an essential contribution to the whole crime in the judgment of the court of first instance, and that the defendant cannot be deemed to have escaped from the conspiracy relationship before and

The ground of appeal that such a determination by the lower court is erroneous is the purport of disputing the fact-finding of the lower court, which is the basis of such determination, and is merely an error of the lower court’s determination of evidence selection and probative value, which is the free judgment by the lower

In addition, while 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 regarding the time when the joint principal offender and the performance was commenced, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

Meanwhile, in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment, the grounds alleged in the grounds of appeal that the lower court erred by infringing on the fundamental contents of the principle of balance between crimes and the principle of responsibility, this constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according 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, the above assertion is made in this case where a more minor sentence has