1. The establishment of facts constituting the Defendant’s case ought 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 the probative value of evidence based 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, prior to determining the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal on the prosecutor’s unfair sentencing, was in a state of mental and physical weakness at the time

The judgment of the first instance court reversed ex officio the judgment, and subsequently convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, and sentenced imprisonment to imprisonment within the scope of punishment that has undergone the statutory mitigation of punishment.

The grounds of appeal disputing such fact-finding by the lower court are nothing more than misunderstanding the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which actually belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. While examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disorder and statutory mitigation thereof, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As long as the defendant filed an appeal against the medical care and custody claim, the appeal against the medical care and custody claim is deemed to have been filed. However, there is no statement in the petition of appeal or the reasons for appeal that the appeal is groundless.

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