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 preparation of evidence and the 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). For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the lower court recognized that the first instance judgment which found all of the criminal facts in the judgment of the first instance court guilty is justifiable, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation in the grounds of appeal as to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

Of the grounds of appeal, the allegation disputing such fact-finding by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even when examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, but did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the

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 prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

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