The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal 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 preparation 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, based on the reasons stated in its reasoning, recognizes the fact that the Defendant deceivings victims as stated in each part of the judgment of the first instance, and acquired money by deception.

Based on the judgment of the court, the defendant did not accept the grounds of appeal as to the mistake of facts.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of the lower court on the facts leading to such determination. It is nothing more than denying the judgment of the lower court 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 aforementioned legal doctrine and the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the distinction between civil liability and fraud, the distinction between fraud and deception as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the bounds of

The Supreme Court precedents cited on the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

Meanwhile, the ground of appeal that the lower court was unlawful because it failed to properly determine whether to agree with the victim Z constitutes the allegation that the lower court’s sentencing is excessive, as it concerns the circumstances that served as the basis for determining the sentencing of the lower court.

However, according to Article 383, Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years.