The appeal is dismissed.

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 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 lower court determined that the facts constituting the fraud of April 19, 2016, which was recorded in the facts of the first instance court, were recognized, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation in the grounds of appeal as to

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such fact-finding by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the evidence selection and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. While 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 exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

In addition, pursuant 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 more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only erroneous determination of facts and unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal. Thus, the argument that the judgment of the court below failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations or erred by misapprehending legal principles on the status of the defendant's mental and physical disorder

On the other hand, although the written appeal submitted by the defendant stated that there was a violation of law or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below, it is legitimate as it did not state specific reasons.