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 the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court affirms the first instance court’s decision recognizing the principal offender’s intent by deeming that: (a) the Defendant’s act of G, etc., as a principal offender, was recognized or foreseeable as an act corresponding to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); and (b) it is recognized that the Defendant, as a principal offender, was aware of and facilitateed the entire crime committed in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising and Door-to-Door Sales, Etc., recorded in the first instance judgment; and (c) in collusion with G, embezzled 70 million won, which was in the course of business custody for the victim D; and (b) it is recognized that the Defendant

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the fact-finding, which is the basis of the judgment of the court of fact-finding, and is merely an error of the judgment of the court below on the selection and probative value of evidence.

In addition, the reasoning of the judgment below is examined in light of the above legal principles and the relevant legal principles as stated in the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted, and the judgment of the court below goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, and fails to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes as an aiding