(b) Special intimidation;

C. Violation of the Aviation Security Act

Law firms (private ships)

Attorney P, R in charge

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant

In light of various circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the instant crime was committed in the state of mental and physical weakness at the time of the instant crime, such as the background and method of the crime, the act of the Defendant committed before and after the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the mental state of the Defendant. Therefore, the lower court, which did not recognize mental and physical weakness, did not err by misapprehending the reasoning of the appeal.

In addition, the argument that there was an illegality in violation of the empirical rules and deviation from the sentencing discretion in the judgment of the court below constitutes an unfair argument for sentencing. However, according to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, imprisonment with prison labor for more than ten years, or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is declared, an appeal may be filed on the ground of unfair sentencing. Therefore, the argument that the above argument or punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable in the instant case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by a prosecutor

The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, among the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecution of this case is recognized as guilty of the spare part of explosion explosion. Even though the court below erred in finding the facts of this case and judged as not guilty, the judgment of the court below was unlawful.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless they go beyond the limit of the free conviction. The ground of appeal is that the allegation of the grounds of appeal is disputing the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the original court, and is not legitimate grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment-dae]

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Kim Jae-hyung