The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the instant facts charged were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err 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 the criminal intent of defraudation in fraud.

In addition, according to the records, the court below sentenced the defendant who was under detention without a defense counsel in this case, not a necessary attorney-at-law, and then appointed a public defender immediately after having sentenced the defendant to a punishment without a defense counsel. The court below did not err by violating Articles 33(1) and 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act or by infringing the defendant's right of defense or the right of defense

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