The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the supplemental appellate brief 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 choice of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the limit of the free evaluation of evidence.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the court below rejected the grounds of appeal on the mistake of facts against the Defendant’s alleged murder, violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special rape), heavy confinement, and violation of the Punishment of Violences Act (collectively weapons, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case, and rejected the grounds of appeal on the charge of misunderstanding of facts against the victim U.S.

The ground of appeal alleging misunderstanding of facts is merely an error of the judgment of the court below on the selection and probative value of evidence, which is the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the credibility of witness statements and the intent in the crime of attempted murder, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal

In addition, according to various circumstances, such as the age, character, intelligence and environment of the defendant, relationship with the victims, motive, means and consequence of each crime, the circumstances after each crime, etc., the judgment of the court below that sentenced the defendant to the 15-year imprisonment for the defendant is extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances asserted by the public defender.