1. Criminal facts have been proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection 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, determined that the Defendant conspired with E and took part in the conduct of specific action, and rejected the allegation of the grounds for appeal as to the mistake of facts by the Defendant.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing such determination of facts by the lower court. It is nothing more than denying the judgment of the lower court on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. Furthermore, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence contrary to logical and empirical rules

2. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, the conviction in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge feel true enough to have a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction may not be judged even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court recognized that the first instance judgment, which acquitted the Defendant of the part concerning the facts charged with psychotropic drugs, such as Stockholm, is justifiable.