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 determined that the Defendant received the borrowed money from the victim on the ground of attracting investment or right to distribute movies in a state where the Defendant has no intent or ability to repay within the agreed time limit, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation in the grounds of appeal claiming mistake of facts.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal by misunderstanding legal principles and misconception of facts is nothing more than a dispute over the judgment of the court below on the choice of evidence and probative value, which belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding fraud and incompetence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

Meanwhile, examining the grounds of appeal alleged by the court below in relation to the grounds of appeal that the court below exceeded the inherent limits of sentencing determination on the grounds of the principle of balanced criminal punishment and the principle of responsibility, the above grounds of appeal constitute the assertion of unfair sentencing in substance.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in the instant case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the Defendant, the argument disputing the determination of the sentence of the lower court, including the