2019Do18122 A. Breach of trust

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Special Economic Crimes;

(c) A teacher who forges private documents;

(d) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

(e) Forgery of evidence;

(f) A perjury;

(g) Occupational embezzlement;

(h) Bribery;

Doctrine, good offices

1. (a) b. (c) d. (f) g. H.

A

2. (i) B

Defendants

Law Firm Tae (for Defendant 1)

[Defendant-Appellant] The Head of Si/Gun/Gu

Seoul High Court Decision 2019Do1716 Decided November 29, 2019

o2, 2020

All appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds for appeal are determined.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

The court below found Defendant A guilty of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), offering of a bribe and a fine, among the facts charged against Defendant A, and imposed a fine concurrently pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Special Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement). Examining the reasoning of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted, the court below did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the "use of the status" as provided by Article 3 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Economic Crimes Act"), and by misapprehending the legal principles on the "use of the status" as provided by Article 132 of the Criminal Act.

According to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case of death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is permitted. Thus, in the case of this case sentenced to a more minor punishment against Defendant A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

For the reasons stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted Defendant B of the facts charged. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to “the fact beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to “the use of its status” under Article 132 of the Criminal Act.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Ansan-chul

Justices Kim Jong-hwan