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 selection 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 determined that the facts acquired through deception as stated in the judgment of the Defendant were all recognized, and that the judgment of the first instance court that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged are reversed, and that

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of the lower court’s fact-finding, and is merely an error in the determination of the lower court’s choice 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 evaluation of evidence contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

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