자유무역지역의지정및운영에관한법률위반
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged and upheld the first instance judgment that collected KRW 86,587,500 from Defendant A pursuant to Article 67(3) and (2) of the Act on Designation and Management of Free Trade Zones (hereinafter “Free Trade Zones Act”).
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 the
According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without 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 minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate
2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged and upheld the first instance judgment that collected KRW 80,138,300 from Defendant B pursuant to Article 67(3) and (2) of the Free Trade Zone Act.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the 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 the intentional act of aiding
As seen above, only in the case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, the argument that the determination of the sentence is unreasonable against Defendant B is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
3. As to the Defendant C’s appeal, the Defendant C.