I first refer to the fact-finding of the lower court as to each of the facts charged in this case.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules.

In light of the records, in this case where it is not possible to find out that the facts established by the court below exceeded the above limit even after examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the above appeal shall not be accepted merely because it criticizes the matters falling under the exclusive authority of the court below.

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant, or by the court below that the defendant did not consider it as a subject of judgment ex officio

In addition, even if examining ex officio, there is no error in the judgment below as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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