In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below found the defendant guilty of not guilty of the defendant, on July 2008, who was found guilty of the above facts charged, on the following grounds: (i) even if the defendant was unable to receive the fraternity from the fraternity members in arrears, and (ii) even if he was operating the fraternity in an irregular manner 30 or more occasions because it was practically difficult for them to receive the fraternity payments, it was impossible for them to actually pay the fraternity payments to the fraternity members if he did not contribute to their own property; and (iii) it was impossible to receive the fraternity payments from the intermediary members in the situation where the new fraternity members were not recruited in full; and (iv) since July 2008, he was unable to receive the fraternity payments from the subcontractor, and even if he was not aware of the fact that the defendant was aware of the fact that he was not guilty of the above funds from the victims by operating the fraternity normally even if he had received the fraternity payments from the fraternity members, and (iii) it was found that the defendant was not aware of the above funds from the victims at least 10th of the above funds.

The judgment below

In light of the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the above determination by the lower court is just and acceptable, and there was no error by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent of deception or deception.

Therefore, the appeal is therefore filed.