Criminal facts have been proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the preparation of evidence and the 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 stated in its reasoning, the lower court still held that the instant commercial building was owned by the victim union and was trusted to H, etc. as the ownership of the victim union.

It is reasonable to view that repayment to the creditors of the association asserted by the defendant is not paid as the proceeds of the sale of the commercial building of this case, and litigation costs, etc. cannot be deemed to have been paid as part of the liquidation process in the process of legitimate liquidation of the victim association. The first decision of the first decision that recognized the crime of embezzlement immediately at the time when the defendant arbitrarily disposed of the commercial building of this case is reasonable, and the defendant did not accept the defendant's allegation

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of the lower court on the facts leading to such determination. It is nothing more than denying the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, 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 aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on union property, crime of embezzlement, crime of embezzlement, embezzlement, and justifiable act, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence

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