Of the Defendant’s assertions in the grounds of appeal, the Defendant did not commit a crime as stated in the facts charged as to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, but did not comply with the rules of evidence, found the Defendant guilty by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and by misapprehending the relevant legal principles. The purport of the lower court’s determination of facts is ultimately disputing the fact-finding of the Defendant.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the limit of the free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

Although examining the reasons in light of the records, the court below cannot find out the grounds that the court below exceeded the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and there is no illegality in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the violation of

In addition, the remaining grounds of appeal that the defendant did not commit any other crime except medication among the violations of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., but the court below found erroneous facts, which are alleged in the grounds of appeal by the defendant as the grounds of appeal or by the court below as the subject of judgment ex officio, shall not be legitimate grounds of appeal.

In addition, even if we look at ex officio, there is no error as alleged above in the judgment of the court below.

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