1. The defendant's grounds for appeal shall be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, 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 court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined that the defendant committed a crime identical to the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, and rejected the allegation of the grounds for appeal by mistake of facts.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of facts by the lower court, and is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection of evidence and probative value, which belong to 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 in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of free conviction doctrine in breach of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of facts charged, degree of proof necessary for conviction, and the determination of the credibility of a

2. As to the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. If the Special Provision does not explicitly transitional provisions regarding retroactive application while establishing a special provision that excludes the extension of the period of extinctive prescription, such provision may be retroactively applied.

The general principles do not exist as to whether it is reasonable, and the rule of law, including the principle of due process and the principle of retroactive prohibition, is not damaged, based on the spirit of Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of the Constitution that declared the principle of due process and the principle of retroactive prohibition.