1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant’s ground of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case (excluding the part concerning innocence)

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison 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 argument that the sentencing of the

2. The gist of the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor as to the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor is that the judgment of the court below is unlawful, since the court below made an erroneous fact-finding in violation of the rules of evidence and acquitted the defendant, despite the conviction of each of the facts charged in this case against the victim W and S, among the facts charged by the prosecutor.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless they exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and the ground of appeal is merely a dispute over the fact-finding belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below and it

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