업무상횡령등
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 the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the lower court acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of crime as to the charge of obstruction of business by force among the facts charged against Defendant A, the charge of occupational breach of trust listed in the annexed list 2-2 of the judgment of the first instance, and the crime of occupational embezzlement listed in the annexed list 3-2 of the judgment of the first instance.
The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error of the lower court’s judgment on the selection and probative value of evidence, which is a substantial judgment of the fact-finding court.
The judgment below
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on force in the crime of interference with business, breach of duty in the crime of occupational breach of trust, and intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the remainder of the charges charged against Defendant A, excluding the part not guilty as set forth in the above paragraph (1).
The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such a determination by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belongs to the free judgment by the fact-finding court.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment is based on the following: (a) exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules; (b) fraud in the crime of interference with business; (c) occurrence of consequence with the other party; (d) specification of the facts charged; (d) credibility of statements in the crime of offering of a bribe; (e) calculation of the amount of occupational breach