The finding of guilt in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, even if there is no doubt of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). Furthermore, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence, which is 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, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined by the first instance court that there is no proof of facts as to the primary facts charged in violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (child abuse), did not accept the allegation of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles, and (2) it was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the conjunctive facts added in the lower court.

It is difficult to see

Recognizing and not guilty.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of the lower court on the facts leading to such determination, and is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free conviction doctrine against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on child abuse of child welfare laws

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