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). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the lower judgment convicting the instant facts charged was justifiable, and rejected the allegation in the grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts.

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, 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 against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on arranging sexual traffic

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of final appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

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