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). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing this point, on the following grounds: (a) it is recognized that: (b) the Defendant arbitrarily dismantled the entrance door network and the original sampling display room of the victim to damage its utility; (c) it was recognized that the entrance door network, etc. was collected inside the victim’s inner part; and (b) it did not constitute an act that does not violate social rules; and (d) determined that the Defendant’s act did not constitute an act that does not violate

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such a judgment of the court below is merely an error of the judgment of the court below as to the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding.

In addition, even after examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “act that does not contravene social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the violation of the law concerning the conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, and

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the lower court’s determination of