The Defendant’s argument in the grounds of appeal is that: (a) the victim was able to make an investment in a friendly relationship with the Defendant and was able to make an investment; (b) there was no fact from the beginning that the victim was 50% of the return on investment or the period of recovery of investment money only three months; and (c) the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even if the Defendant did not have

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

In light of the reasons and records, the fact-finding by the court below is not recognized to have exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may be filed only where the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is sentenced. Thus, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence

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