The argument in the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court below is unlawful, since the defendant conspired with the co-defendant B of the court below that he did not deceiving victims and did not have the intention of deception, and the court below erred in the misapprehension of relevant legal principles, thereby finding the defendant guilty.

However, the recognition of facts, the selection and evaluation of evidence is within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

In light of the record, even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the recognition of the facts exceeded the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

There is no error of misapprehending the relevant legal principles in the lower court’s judgment that recognized a criminal defendant’s fraud based on such factual basis.

The argument that the lower court’s judgment’s failure to deliberate on the sentencing grounds constitutes an unreasonable argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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