1. The choice of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted as the premise of finding facts against the accused case belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court;

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that there was no “special circumstance” in which the Defendant’s personal information pertaining to each of the instant crimes may not be disclosed or notified to the public, and rejected the allegation in the grounds of appeal.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the judgment of the court below as to the choice of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding an order to disclose personal information or exceeding the bounds of the principle 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 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 amount of punishment by the court below

2. As to the attachment order case, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the first instance court’s judgment, which was the receipt of the prosecutor’s request for the attachment order, was acceptable, by deeming the Defendant to have the risk of recidivism and recidivism of the sexual assault crime, was acceptable,

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the judgment of the court below as to the choice of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding.

In addition, the reasoning of the judgment below is legitimate.