The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

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 selection of evidence and 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 reasons indicated in its reasoning, the court below rejected the grounds for appeal as to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the ground that the act of refusing to return or taking out the accounting books and documents of this case without permission as stated in the facts charged by the victim company, which is its originator and manager, constitutes embezzlement and larceny.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the judgment of the court below as to the choice of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on attribution of ownership in delegated affairs-related documents or by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation

In addition, considering the reasoning of the lower judgment in relation to the grounds of appeal that the lower court erred by exceeding the inherent limits of sentencing discretion based on the principle of balance of punishment and the principle of responsibility, the above grounds of appeal constitute the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a fine is imposed against the defendant, the sentence is