2. B

The rise of Law Firm (For Defendant 2)

Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

According to the records, Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing grounds for appeal. In such a case, the allegation that the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant’s procedural defect excluding the right to cross-examination and the right to participate in the examination, and the application of legal provisions, which are unconstitutional

Defendant A asserted that there exists a procedural defect in the lower court’s sentencing determination excluding the Defendant’s right to cross-examination and the right to participate in the examination, and that there was no favorable sentencing factor, thereby maintaining the lower limit of the scope of sentencing. However, even if examining the record in light of the record, there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal in the lower court’s sentencing determination. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, even in cases where the Defendant’s appeal is allowed only for those cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, and thus, in this case where the Defendant was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the Defendant A’s punishment

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “pre-election” under the Public Official Election Act.

Defendant B alleged that the sentencing of the first instance court against the purport of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials by prescribing a sentence differently from the majority opinion of the jury in the sentencing judgment of the lower court is erroneous. However, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on citizen participation in the judgment of sentencing.

As seen above, even in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where Defendant B was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument to the effect that the punishment is unreasonable is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

The argument that there is an error of law in the judgment of the court below as to erroneous determination of the relation of crime and application of the legal provisions which are unconstitutional, is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal by Defendant B only in the grounds of appeal or in the judgment below without

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Ansan-chul

Justices Kim Jong-hwan