beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
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). On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant was guilty of violating the Act on Promotion of the Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (obscenity distribution) among the criminal facts in its holding, the Defendant asserted that
The allegation of the grounds of appeal, which is erroneous in the judgment of the court below, is merely erroneous in the determination of the court below as to the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding and the finding of facts based thereon. In addition, even considering the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the relevant legal principles as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal meaning of
subsection (b) of this section.
Meanwhile, the argument that the court below, prior to remand, rendered the same sentence as that of the court below before remanding, constitutes an assertion of the purport that the court below substantially contests the determination of the sentence of the court below.
However, 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 more than ten years is imposed, a final appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, the above assertion that sentencing is unfair in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant does not constitute legitimate grounds for final appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is therefore filed.