The argument in the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court below is unlawful, since the defendant did not deception the victim, and the relationship between the defendant's deception and the dispositive act of the victim is not recognized, and the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the deception or the dispositive act of fraud, 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 in the lower court’s judgment that recognized a criminal defendant’s fraud based on such factual basis by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding deception or fraud relation.

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 a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

On the other hand, the Defendant, separate from the instant case, was tried for a crime of fraud in the District Court, and the Defendant asserts that it was unlawful to accept the Defendant’s request that the said Court be tried concurrently with the instant case.

However, the issue of consolidation of pleadings is not only within the discretion of the court, but also because the above argument is a violation of the procedure for the above case, it is not a legitimate ground for appeal as to this case.

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