(b) Forging a private document;

(c) Alteration of private documents;

(d) Exercising forged private documents;

(e) Exercising altered private documents;

(f) interference with business;

G. Violation of the Child Welfare Act

(h) Violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving);

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act), but the probative value of the selection of evidence and evidence made on the premise of fact-finding belongs to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

The first instance court, after a citizen participation trial, and on the same grounds as the judgment in its holding, found the defendant to be aware of, or predicted the possibility or risk of the death of the victim H H eburgical shock or low blood shock, etc. for 25 months, but continued assaulting the above victim to bring about an internal ebbbrative ebrative ebrative ebrative ebrative ebrative ebrative ebrative ebr 20% or 25% of the total blood amount, and also argued that the above victim's son's ebrative ebrative ebrative ebr ebr ebr ebr ebr ombr ebr ebr ebr ombr ebr ebr ombr ebr son ebr ebr son ebr ebr ebr.

The argument of the grounds of appeal disputing the determination of facts by the court below is nothing more than that of the court below's determination of the freedom of the fact-finding court, and it is nothing more than that of the court below's determination of the choice of evidence and probative value. Furthermore, considering the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the above legal principles and the relevant legal principles of the court of first instance as well as the evidence duly adopted, the court below's determination of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to "influence of injury and death of murder and death of murder" as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by exceeding the bounds of due diligence due to free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, considering the following circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the determination of the sentence of the lower court, even if considering the circumstances in which the Defendant and the defense counsel raised this claim, does not seem to be extremely unfair.

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kwon Soon-il