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). For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the first instance judgment which found the Defendant guilty of the instant criminal facts committed on confinement was justifiable, 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 recognition of facts that served as the basis of the judgment of the court below. It is nothing more than denying the judgment of the court below on the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of confinement or exceeding the limit

Meanwhile, in the grounds of appeal, the allegation that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “other person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame” in the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kameras, etc.) in the judgment of the lower court, is erroneous. The allegation that the Defendant’s ground of appeal or the lower court did not consider it as being subject to judgment ex officio is not a legitimate ground of appeal against

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