The appeal is dismissed.

The relevant legal provisions of the judgment of the court below concerning criminal facts and the prior choice of punishment shall be the column for the application of the law of the court below.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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 determined that the Defendant used subsidies for private purposes, such as the case No. 5, No. 10, 12, and 17 (Crime No. 1) annually, and rejected the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts.

The grounds of appeal disputing the recognition of facts in the judgment of the court below are nothing more than that of the court below which actually belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even when examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 54(2) of the Infant Care Act, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or exceeding the bounds of free evaluation, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the final appeal is dismissed. However, it is clear that there is an error in the pertinent Article of the Criminal Procedure Rule and the door column of the punishment for the criminal facts in the context of the application of the law of the court below. Therefore, it is decided to revise it in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all