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 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 recognized that the first instance judgment, which did not admit the Defendant’s assertion disputing each of the criminal facts and occupational embezzlement in the judgment, was justifiable, and rejected the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

Of the grounds of appeal, the argument disputing such fact-finding by the lower court is merely an error of free judgment on the evidence selection and probative value of the lower court, which is a fact-finding court. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the relevant legal principles as well as the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the elements of fraud, such as intentional act, deception, victim’s mistake and disposal, and relation with the victim, intent to obtain unjust enrichment and the burden of proof of criminal litigation, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to logical and empirical rules.

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 by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.