The argument in the grounds of appeal is that the court below erred in finding facts against the rules of evidence, because the court below did not deceiving the victim as to whether the child under protection was present or not, and there was no intention of defamation.

However, the recognition of facts, the selection and evaluation of evidence is within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

In light of the record, the lower court’s finding of facts as to the part of the instant facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the first instance trial) and the part concerning the violation of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) exceeded the bounds of the principle of free conviction.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Whether to adopt a single letter of application for examination of evidence is not necessary by the court at its discretion.

In determining a person, evidence may not be examined (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7947, Jan. 27, 2011). Even if the lower court rejected the Defendant’s application for witness, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

Other grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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