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, found all criminal facts of Articles 2, 3, and 4 in the first instance judgment to be guilty.

The grounds of appeal disputing such fact-finding by the lower court are merely erroneous in the determination of the lower court’s choice of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court, and the reasoning of the lower judgment did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, even when examining the grounds of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly

Among the grounds for appeal, the ground for appeal does not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal against the lower judgment, since the Defendant did not assert the grounds for appeal at the lower court, and the lower court did not consider it as the subject of ex officio.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair does not constitute legitimate grounds for

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