특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. The lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged against Defendant A.
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 without exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on deception, deception, and fraud and joint principal offense in fraud.
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 is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground
Therefore, in this case where the defendant A was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
2. The lower court found Defendant B, C guilty of all the charges against Defendant B and C.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders
3. As seen above, only in the case on which the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years was imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground of unreasonable sentencing.
Therefore, in this case where the defendant D was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
4. The lower court convicted Defendant E of the facts charged against Defendant E.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by deception and fraud.