beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
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 the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (1) For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the instant tort committed by the Defendant while taking overall charge of the entrusted business, such as the examination of vehicle security loans, as a vice head of the victim U.S., constitutes an act that ought not naturally, and thus, constitutes an act that has a fiduciary relationship, and thus, constitutes an intentional breach of trust committed by the Defendant; and (2) according to
It is reasonable to see that the loan review work in relation to the illegal act of this case cannot be deemed as Defendant’s business, and (2) rejected Defendant’s appeal as to misapprehension of the legal doctrine and found Defendant guilty of all the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.
The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the fact that actually led to the judgment of the lower court, and it is nothing more than denying the judgment of the lower court on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belongs 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 principles and the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational breach of trust, fraud, calculation of the amount of benefits for occupational breach of trust, and calculation of the amount of benefits for occupational breach of trust, as otherwise alleged in
Meanwhile, the ground of appeal that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, failure of deliberation, and omission of judgment constitutes an argument that the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive.
However, Article 383. 383.