All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements of reasons for appeal filed after the deadline for appeal).

1. As to the reasons for Defendant A’s appeal, the recognition of criminal facts ought 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 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 A, as stated in each criminal facts in the judgment of the first instance court, had deceiving the relevant victim, thereby deceiving the said victim, and rejected the allegation of the grounds for appeal as to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine

Of the grounds of appeal, the argument disputing such fact-finding by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, considering the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, even if part of the reasoning of the lower judgment is not inappropriate, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the

In addition, the argument of the grounds for appeal that Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, infringes the right to a trial and violates the excessive prohibition principle and equality principle, is not acceptable as it goes against the established Supreme Court precedents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6318, Feb. 20, 2003; 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). The above argument is examined in light of the reasoning of the judgment below.