All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the reasons for Defendant B’s appeal, criminal facts should 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 the reasons stated in its reasoning, the court below reversed the judgment of the first instance court which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the part of each insurance money out of the facts charged of this case against the above Defendant, by submitting a false trade contract at the time of entering into an insurance contract, which clearly exceeds the value of the subject matter at the time of entering into the insurance contract, causing the occurrence of the insurance event under the above insurance contract, causing the occurrence of the insurance event exceeding the value of the subject matter, and receiving the insurance money by claiming the insurance money under the above insurance contract with the victim who did not know of the excess insurance fact constitutes deception against the victim, and as long as the insurance money was paid in excess of insurance status by deception

Of the grounds of appeal, the argument disputing the lower court’s factual recognition is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on deception, duty of disclosure, intent to acquire deception, and causal relationship, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the above defendant appealed to the remaining guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, but the petition of appeal.