(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(c) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(d) Violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users;

(e) Violence;

F. Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act

(g) Offering of bribe;

(h) Larceny;

Doctrine, good offices

(j) Acceptance of bribe;

2.f.i.b.

(j)D.

Attorney BY (the national election for defendant D)

section 3.

All appeals by Defendant A and D are dismissed.

A. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the court below committed violence among the facts charged against Defendant A.

It is justifiable to have judged that the defendant is guilty of violation of the Punishment Act (joint intimidation).

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

No error that exceeds the bounds or fails to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

B. As to Defendant D’s ground of appeal

The principle of balanced criminal punishment and the book of the judgment of the court below due to incomplete deliberation on the circumstances attached to the sentencing.

The assertion that there was an error in violation of the principle of discretionary discretion constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty, imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than ten years.

Defendant D is allowed to file an appeal on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing only in a case on which an elevated decision was rendered.

In this case where more minor punishment was imposed, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is legitimate.

one of the grounds for appeal is not a ground for appeal.

2. Ex officio determination on Defendant B’s larceny

A. We decide ex officio prior to the judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal.

(1) The theft means the exclusion of possession of any property possessed by another person against the latter’s will.

to be transferred to one’s own or a third party’s possession (Supreme Court Decision 2008Do208 Decided July 10, 2008)

3252 see Supreme Court Decision 3252

(2) The court below held that Defendant B will use the passbook for business from Defendant A only one.

under the name of the defendant B upon receipt of the request, the bank head of the foreign exchange bank and one debit card.

One debit card that can withdraw cash from the passbook when transferring the passbook to Defendant A.

Use of the debit card at the cash payment period for the management of the victim foreign exchange bank.

of this part of the thief in the summary that the thief was stolen by withdrawing 5.8 million won in cash on two occasions.

The first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged on the crime was affirmed as is.

(3) However, even if based on this part of the facts charged, Defendant B’s deposit account in the above foreign exchange bank

The Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality is established under his/her own name.

Except in exceptional cases, a person who is a party to a deposit contract and has a right to request a return of deposit shall be named as such.

As such, (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da45828, Mar. 19, 2009).

to withdraw a deposit from the bank account in its name, if such bank account is held by

Since it cannot be deemed as contrary to the intent of the bank, it cannot be deemed as a theft.

(4) Nevertheless, the court below held otherwise from Defendant B’s account in his name on the foreign exchange bank account.

The act of withdrawing money constitutes larceny, and thus the act of causing the conviction of this part of the facts charged.

In addition, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to larceny.

error affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Meanwhile, the court below held that the above facts charged against Defendant B and the remaining facts charged are as follows.

Defendant B was sentenced to a single punishment on the ground that there was a concurrent crime relationship in the former part of this Article.

Therefore, not only the above facts charged but also the remainder of the facts charged should be reversed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio.

In order to reverse the part concerning Gohap B and to re-examine and determine this part of the case

All appeals by Defendant A and D are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Byung-hee

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jong-il