특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
The judgment below
The part against Defendant F is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal filed by Defendants H and J, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).
1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant E, Defendant H, Defendant I, Defendant J, and Defendant K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”), and on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act among the grounds for appeal by Defendant C, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted all of the charges of violation of the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act against Defendants A, B, Defendant E, Defendant H, Defendant H, Defendant I, Defendant J, Defendant J, Defendant K, and Defendant C on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.
In doing so, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the establishment of a crime of violating Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the establishment of accomplices, the legal nature of the joint body, the falsity of relevant tax invoices, the relevant evidence rules, and the comprehensive offense
2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant D’s appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted Defendant D of all of the facts charged of bribery and occupational embezzlement, which are the ancillary facts charged, among the facts charged in the instant case.
There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of acceptance of bribe, the intention of unlawful acquisition and the status of an occupational custodian in the crime of embezzlement.
3. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to Defendant F’s ground of appeal and Defendant C’s embezzlement, which is an ancillary charge, among the grounds for appeal.