1. 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 preparation 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). For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the lower court recognized the criminal facts in the judgment of the first instance court as guilty, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation of the facts alleged in the judgment of the first instance, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation of the grounds for appeal as to the mistake of facts by the Defendants.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the determination of the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which is substantially the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even when 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 misapprehending the legal doctrine on the statutory principle of crime, the prohibition of analogical interpretation, and Article 103 of the Constitution, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation principle, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding Defendant A’s grounds for appeal that there was an error of incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment, or lack of reasoning on the conditions of sentencing, this constitutes an unfair assertion of sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, an appeal is allowed for the wrongful grounds for sentencing.