1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Articles 307(1) and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act provide that the probative value of evidence shall be based on evidence, but its probative value shall be based on the discretion of the judge.

This means that a judge's acceptance and use of the necessary evidence and evaluation of the substantial value of the evidence constitutes a judge's free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, inasmuch as it is not contrary to logical and empirical rules by rejecting evidence with sufficient probative value without reasonable grounds or by adopting and using evidence clearly contrary to objective facts without reasonable grounds, a judge can recognize facts by adopting evidence with free evaluation evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do1755 Decided May 29, 2008 and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Do11650 Decided August 20, 2015, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do1650, May 29,

The court below reasoned that Co-Defendant B made a statement at the prosecutor's office that "the defendant was aware of the fact that he was an applicant as well as the defendant," but reversed that's statement at the court of first instance. However, the above B was only consulted with the debtor under the name of the debtor, and the consideration for loan mediation was received from the O. While the prosecutor's office's statement was specific, the statement at the court of first instance was merely simply vague, and there was no explanation as to how to reverse the statement, and there was no explanation as to the reasons for reversal, and that the statement at the court of first instance corresponds to the B's prosecutor's statement at the court of first instance, it is hard to believe that the defendant's statement at the court of first instance corresponds to the prosecutor's office's statement at the court of first instance, and rejected the credibility of the defendant's prosecutor's statement at the court of first instance that corresponds to the defendant's defense, and the defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office was used as evidence.