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 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). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court recognized that the first instance court, which recognized the Defendant’s attempt to rape and attempted rape, was justifiable, and rejected the grounds for appeal concerning mistake of facts against this issue.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the lower court’s fact-finding is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the evidence selection and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court, and the reasoning of the lower judgment is examined in light of the evidence duly admitted, and there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation

In addition, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the judgment below did not recognize mental disorder is erroneous, is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as it newly asserts in the final appeal that the defendant has either taken it as the grounds of appeal or was not subject to an ex officio decision.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the lower court is unreasonable

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