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 the same as indicated in its reasoning, determined that, among the workplaces, the retirement age was abolished after January 1, 201, the implementation date of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603 on December 31, 2010, only the workplaces abolished the retirement age after January 1, 201, which was the enforcement date of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Jan. 1, 2011, did not accept the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

Of the grounds of appeal, the part of the lower court’s assertion disputing the recognition of facts is merely an error of the lower court’s determination as to the selection of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. Moreover, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles, relevant employment insurance statutes, and evidence duly adopted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation, or by

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