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 lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that intimidation, indecent act by force, and special confinement as stated in the first instance court’s judgment were recognized, rejected the allegation of the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts.

The ground of appeal, which is erroneous in the judgment of the court below, is purporting to dispute the fact-finding of the court below. It is merely erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below as to the selection of evidence and probative value which belong to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding. Even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment as to the adoption of witness

(2) As to the grounds for appeal, the part of the grounds for appeal, which is the same as the grounds for appeal submitted to the appellate court, shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal, by citing the facts expressed in the records of trial and in the examination of evidence by the lower court, clearly stating the specific reasons as to how a part of the lower judgment is in violation of the statutes, and citing the allegations described in the grounds for appeal shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do2716, Feb. 13, 1996; 99Do513, Apr. 21, 200).

On the other hand, the court below's determination of sentencing contains an error of law beyond the inherent limit of discretion in sentencing by the court of fact-finding based on the principle of balanced punishment or the principle of responsibility.