[2] Whether legitimate grounds of appeal may be deemed to have been submitted in a case where the appellate brief did not state specific and explicit reasons and only stated that there was a violation of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment below (negative)

[2] The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only within the extent of filing an appeal based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal should specify the grounds of final appeal and explain specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the judgment below is in violation of the law. Therefore, the grounds of final appeal cannot be deemed to have been submitted as legitimate grounds of final appeal on the ground of final appeal on the ground of final appeal submitted by the appellant, on the ground that the court below merely stated that there was a violation of the law or misapprehension of legal principles without the aforementioned specific and explicit reasons, the mere ground of final appeal as to what evidence was alleged in the grounds of final appeal is against the rules of evidence.

1. Judgment on acquittal

In the case of an ordinary concurrent relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Code, the res judicata effect of a final judgment on one of them extends to other crimes (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Do643, Jun. 25, 1991; 91Do2642, Dec. 10, 1991; 91Do2642, Feb. 10, 199). Here, the term "one of the acts" means that an act is evaluated as one of the natural conditions of things, regardless of the legal evaluation (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do2731, Feb. 24, 1987).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, among the facts charged in this case, the summary of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) is as follows: “The defendant is a person working for the head of the development planning team of the victim Nonindicted 1. The defendant is unable to implement the construction of Nonindicted 1 on April 22, 2005, and is demanded by Nonindicted 2 to return the agreed amount and penalty from the construction of Nonindicted 2. In the construction office on June 28, 2005, the defendant should obtain a summary order of KRW 500 million on the part of Nonindicted 2, which was written by the Nonindicted 2, to pay KRW 500,000,000 to Nonindicted 2, and KRW 1,500,000,000 from June 29, 2005 to pay KRW 500,000,000,000 to the representative director, and the defendant should prepare the above construction agreement with the above construction order of KRW 1,5000,00,00.

Thus, the facts constituting the crime of forging or utteringing private documents for which a summary order has become final and conclusive and the facts charged in which the defendant arbitrarily prepared and delivered the same agreement and thereby causing property damage to the company is an act which constitutes one act of objective facts, and thus, one act constitutes several crimes and constitutes a commercial concurrent relationship as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the res judicata of the above summary order extends to the above facts charged is just, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Judgment as to the acquittal portion

The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only within the extent of filing an objection based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal shall specify the grounds of final appeal and explain specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the judgment below is in violation of the law. Without the aforementioned specific and explicit reasons, the appellate brief submitted by the appellant shall not be deemed a legitimate ground of final appeal, since it does not assert any specific grounds of final appeal as to what kind of evidence is against the rules of evidence, nor is it stated merely in the appellate brief that there exists a violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles.

According to the records, the prosecutor filed a final appeal and submitted a brief statement stating the "total amount" in the column of the final appeal, and the grounds for final appeal stating that "the violation of the rules of evidence collection and the misapprehension of the legal principles affected the conclusion of the judgment," and the grounds for final appeal as to the portion not guilty are not stated in the grounds for final appeal. In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to view the portion not guilty as having been acquitted as having been submitted with legitimate grounds for final

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)