The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The acknowledgement of facts against the accused case shall reach the level of proof with 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). The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of the injury resulting from confinement among the facts charged in the instant case, rejected the grounds of appeal for misconception of facts that raised the

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the lower court’s fact-finding is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the evidence selection and probative value, which belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination did not err by violating the logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what

In addition, even though examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, including the evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as a mental and physical disability is not erroneous in the determination of mental and physical disorder, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and there is no illegality that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the emergency arrest procedure or the error in

In addition, pursuant to 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 more 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

2. With respect to the claim for attachment order, the lower court did not state the grounds for appeal regarding the part on which the Defendant filed the statement of grounds of appeal or the petition of appeal regarding the attachment order claim.