The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below rejected the grounds of appeal for misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that the defendant could recognize the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim and caused the victim to pay the lease fee.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the lower court’s fact-finding is nothing more than disputing the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which actually belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

In addition, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the statute of limitations has expired is a new assertion of the grounds that the statute of limitations has not been asserted on the date of the original trial.

In addition, even in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the statute of limitations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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