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 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 determined that the Defendant embezzled the fishery products of this case and embezzled them by the method of refusing to return the automobiles of this case, and rejected the allegation of the grounds for appeal as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

The allegation of the grounds of appeal that such a determination by the lower court is erroneous is the purport of disputing the lower court’s finding of facts. It is nothing more than denying the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belongs to the free judgment by the fact-finding court. In addition, even if 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 by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the presumption of innocence and the intention

Meanwhile, the argument that the defendant's right to defense was infringed due to the failure to specify the facts charged as to the occupational embezzlement of this case is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is therefore filed.