The finding of guilt in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be judged even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). Moreover, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence, which are based on the premise of fact-finding, belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) which is the primary charge related to the sale price of F 601 out of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court affirmed the first instance court’s judgment that found the Defendant and the victim not guilty on the ground that the “Settlement Agreement between June 14, 2008 and July 6, 2009,” which was entered into between the Defendant and the victim, cannot be deemed to fall under the “Agreement on the Management of Specific Business,” and found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the facts charged in the instant case constitute violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), which is the ancillary charges added at the lower court, can not be deemed

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

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.