The argument in the grounds of appeal is that the defendant would pay the purchase price.

The court below erred in finding facts against the rules of evidence without deceiving victims, and erred in misapprehending the legal principles on fraud, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

However, the recognition of facts, the selection and evaluation of evidence is within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

In light of the record, even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the recognition of the facts exceeded the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

In accordance with such factual basis, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud, which found the Defendant to have committed a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

In addition, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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