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). On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant had driven the instant vehicle and moved to the taxi platform, and rejected the grounds for appeal on mistake of facts.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such determination by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the evidence selection and probative value, which belong to the free judgment by the fact-finding court, and even if 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 by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the

In addition, the argument that the decision of the court below contains an error of incomplete deliberation on sentencing is ultimately an argument of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 not less 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 punishment

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