The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendants of violation of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents due to the conclusion of sales agency contracts with limited liability companies, and ② occupational breach of trust and violation of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents due
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on double prosecution.
In addition, the argument that there was an error of mistake in the part concerning fraud, accusation, and occupational breach of trust related to AH among the judgment below is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the final appeal that the defendant did not regard it as the ground for appeal or that it was not subject to an ex officio
According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable cannot
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.