The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of each intrusion on residence as indicated in the lower judgment.

The ground of appeal, which is erroneous in the judgment of the court below, is the purport of disputing the determination of facts by the court below. It is merely erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below as to the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding. In light of the above legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the

The Defendant’s assertion that he was in a state of mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the instant crime is not a legitimate ground for final appeal, since the Defendant withdraws from the first trial date of the lower court, and the lower court was not subject to ex officio.

In addition, 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

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