The finding of guilt in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a correct doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no such proof, even if there is no doubt of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). Furthermore, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted as a premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, has a relation between the previous crime for which the judgment on the facts charged of this case became final and the previous crime.

Recognizing that the first decision of acquittal is maintained, and the prosecutor rejected the grounds for appeal as to the misapprehension of the legal principles.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the lower court’s fact-finding that the instant facts charged was conducted by a single and continuous criminal intent with the existing crime. It is nothing more than denying the lower court’s judgment on the selection of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on comprehensive crimes, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, as alleged

The Supreme Court precedents cited on the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

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