All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, criminal facts should 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 indicated in its reasoning, the court below rejected Defendant’s allegation in the grounds of appeal in misapprehension of legal principles on the determination that Defendant’s act does not constitute an act solely for the purpose of public interest as prescribed in

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing that the defendant's act was for the public interest is nothing more than an error of the judgment of the court below on the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the above legal doctrine and the relevant legal doctrine as stated in the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on public interest as otherwise

The defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act in the grounds of appeal.

The argument that there is no possibility of spreading or that there is no possibility of appeal shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant, or by the court below that it is not subject to ex officio

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, in a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001 and Supreme Court Decision 9 March 9, 2006