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 reasons stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the first instance judgment was justifiable to the effect that, as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant suffered special injury to the victim and recognized the fact that the victim was raped, and rejected the Defendant’s appeal as to the mistake of fact.

The ground of appeal disputing the determination of facts by the court below 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 court of fact-finding, and even when examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the court below did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal or did not err by exceeding the bounds of

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 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 imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

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