The lower court upheld the conclusion of innocence of the first instance judgment on the grounds that, based on its stated reasoning, the Defendant and the victim’s statement, etc., based on the following circumstances: (a) based on the product production agreement concluded on May 11, 2010 between the Defendant and the victim, the costs incurred in the production of clothing at Vietnam companies and the obligation to issue a letter of credit is LA; (b) the Defendant bears the burden; and (c) the Defendant cannot be trusted the fact that the instant investigation is an event and the victim’s statement consistent with the point of fraud (hereinafter “instant charges”), among the instant charges; and (d) the remainder of the evidence submitted

The Prosecutor’s ground of appeal on this point is that the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charge of this case in full view of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor. However, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud by selecting false evidence and finding facts.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on such premise are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the limit of the free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

Even if examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court’s fact-finding and evidence judgment did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, and there is no illegality of misapprehending the legal principles regarding

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