Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning, is reasonable to have the first instance judgment convicting a trader as to Article 1 of the Criminal facts of the first instance judgment that (1) the payment of the price for the goods has been paid in advance to the trader, and

(2) As to the crime No. 2 in the judgment of the first instance, it is recognized that the defendant acquired profits by making an individual transaction in violation of his/her duties, and that the damage as prescribed in the crime of occupational breach of trust has occurred to the victim company.

It is reasonable to view it.

(3) The Defendant did not accept all the grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such determination by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the evidence selection and probative value, which substantially belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the relevant legal principles of the first instance court, and the evidence duly admitted, although the reasoning of the lower judgment is partially inappropriate or insufficient, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the status of the custodian of the occupational embezzlement and the commercial interests in the occupational breach of trust, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation principle, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The Supreme Court precedents cited on the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.