1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is just to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendants guilty on the charge of fraud on the grounds that there is no proof of a crime among the facts charged against the Defendants, and to render a judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the Defendants. In so doing, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical

2. As to the grounds for appeal on confiscation, the confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is discretionary, and as such, whether it is necessary to confiscate an article that meets the requirements for confiscation is left at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do3504, Feb. 15, 2013; 2017Do5905, Oct. 23, 2017). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, did not sentence the confiscation of cash and cellular phone.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, although the lower court’s reasoning was partially inappropriate, the lower court’s above determination is justifiable in its conclusion.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors affecting the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation.

3. Meanwhile, the prosecutor appealed to the entire judgment of the court below, but the part of conviction and the part of innocence in the judgment below did not indicate the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal or the reasons of appeal.

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