특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)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. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal
A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted the Defendant of the following facts: (a) the amount deposited on April 29, 2010 in relation to the acquisition price of the golf course in the instant facts charged against China; (b) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) concerning the amount deposited on June 1, 2010; (c) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) concerning the money granted to F and A; and (d) the occupational embezzlement of the money granted to F and A; and (c) contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence; or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of unlawful acquisition and embezzlement
B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted the Defendant of the charge of giving property in breach of trust on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and exceeding the bounds of the logical and empirical rules, or by
C. Although the Defendant appealed on the obstruction of business and injury as stated in the judgment below, the Defendant did not indicate the grounds for objection to the petition of appeal and the appellate brief.
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant E’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s judgment, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, interferes with each of the Defendant’s duties.