1. Criminal facts have been proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection 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 the Defendant guilty of the criminal facts in the first instance judgment that the Defendant acquired by the Defendant through supply of the instant shot and shot language from the victim C, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation that the first instance judgment was legitimate, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation that there was a mistake in fact-finding.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of facts by the lower court. It is nothing more than an error of the lower court’s determination as to the selection of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. Furthermore, 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 err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of free conviction doctrine contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the degree

2. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, in a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge correct conviction to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction may not be rendered even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). The lower court, on the grounds the reasons indicated in its reasoning, exports part of the victim F’s freezing, which the Defendant kept, to Korea.