The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The Defendant’s assertion in the grounds of appeal did not have access to the victim C with prior knowledge that the victim C is a person with a defect in hearing and intellectual level, and even though it did not receive money from the said victim as the source of investment in the construction project, the lower court found the victim guilty of this part of the facts charged or considered the Defendant’s reasons for sentencing disadvantageous to the Defendant by finding false facts with the credibility of the victim’s false statements, and thus, the lower court’

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence, which are the premise thereof, belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the limit of the free evaluation of evidence

The judgment below

Even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, it cannot be found that the judgment below exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

Ultimately, the above argument in the grounds of appeal is merely to criticize the fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive right of the court of original judgment, and thus, cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

Meanwhile, according to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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