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). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant received excessive amount of insurance proceeds from the victim insurance companies after having received false hospitalized treatment despite the absence of the need for long-term hospitalization as stated in the facts charged in this case, and that the Defendant’s act is sufficient to recognize it as a deception, the lower court rejected the grounds for appeal regarding

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such a judgment by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment by the fact-finding court.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the legal doctrine as seen in the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud or by violating the principle

In addition, other grounds for appeal asserted by the defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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