1. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A and B on the ground that all of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A and B and the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant C did not prove any crime.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant C’s grounds for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted the Defendant of all frauds against the victim QT, AT,O, and BE among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

In addition, Article 33(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the court shall appoint a defense counsel ex officio in cases falling under any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (1), while Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a defense counsel shall be appointed if there is no defense counsel in cases falling under any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (1). On the other hand, Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a defense counsel shall be appointed at the discretion of the defendant within the extent that does not go against the express will of the defendant, except in cases falling under each subparagraph of Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.