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, recognizing the guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, recognized the first instance judgment that did not admit the Defendant’s assertion that asserted the facts charged in the instant case, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the grounds of appeal as to the mistake of facts

The grounds of appeal purporting to the effect that the lower court’s determination is based on the facts alleged in the reasoning of the lower judgment are nothing more than denying the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which actually belongs to the lower court’s free judgment. While 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 exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

In addition, in light of the content and degree of the defense activity of the national defense counsel in the court below as shown in the record, the ground of appeal that the national defense counsel was not properly supported in the court below's trial cannot be accepted.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of an unfair sentencing. As such, the argument that the sentence is unduly unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal as stipulated in the above provision.

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