The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The argument in the grounds of appeal is that the defendant pays 5.5% of the investment to the victim AG per week, and the principal will be returned as at the time when the profit is reduced after one week.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the criminal intent of fraud and the relation between deception and deception, and found the defendant guilty as to this part of the facts charged, since there was no deception of the above victim, and there was no intention of deception, and ② the defendant provided sufficient collateral to the victim A Q and borrowed money.

However, the recognition of facts, the selection and evaluation of evidence is within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

In light of the record, even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the recognition of the facts exceeded the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

In light of such facts, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent of fraud and the relationship between deception and deception, which found the Defendant guilty of the fraud of the victim AG and the fraud of the property of Q among the facts charged in the instant case.

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