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 court below decided to the effect that the judgment of the court of first instance, which judged that the defendant murdered the victim, was justifiable, and rejected the grounds for appeal as to the mistake of fact against this issue.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error of the judgment of the court below as to the selection of evidence and probative value which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. While examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to "unborn intentional

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that did not recognize self-defense or excessive defense does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal due to a new argument in the final appeal.

In addition, considering various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive means and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the determination of the sentence of the lower court, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to ten years’ imprisonment, is extremely unfair even if considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the public defender.

Therefore, it is therefore.