The Defendant’s argument in the grounds of appeal is that the fact-finding by the lower court was erroneous as to the amount remitted or received by the Defendant from the victim and the details of the disposition regarding M apartment as indicated in the lower judgment, and that the Defendant was guilty by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of embezzlement in the course of occupational embezzlement and breach of trust, although the Defendant did not have any intent to commit an occupational embezzlement or to obtain illegal acquisition.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the limit of the free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

Even if examining the reasoning in light of the record, it cannot be found that the court below exceeded the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in its fact-finding.

In addition, among the facts charged in the instant case, the crime of embezzlement is established where the Defendant disposes of real estate acquired from funds remitted by the victim and embezzled the proceeds received from the victim at will. The money received from a third party on behalf of the delegating person is kept on behalf of the delegating person, barring any special circumstance.

I would like to say.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is based on the premise that there was a title trust agreement on individual real estate acquired in the name of the defendant, and it is without merit as it differs from the facts charged or the facts charged that the court below found guilty, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on property or the status of custodian in the judgment below.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.