2017Do3800 A. Abuse of official authority and obstruction of exercise of rights

(b) Violation of Mountainous Districts Management Act;

C. Violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development

(d) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

Fraud

1.(a)

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

3.(b).

A person shall be appointed.

4. D. E.

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant B, C, D, and Prosecutor (Defendant A)

Law Firm (LLC) E (For Defendant A)

Attorney F, G

Attorney JC (for national ships, Defendant C)

JD Law Firm (For Defendant D)

Attorney JE, JF

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Do2026 Decided February 16, 2017

June 29, 2017

All appeals are dismissed.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A.

The prosecutor asserts that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on intention.

However, even if examining the relevant legal principles and records, there is no such error in the judgment of the court below.

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

Defendant B asserts that the judgment of the court below convicting Defendant B of the facts charged in this case was erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles on changes in the form and quality under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones and joint principal offenders.

However, even if examining the relevant legal principles and records, there is no such error in the judgment of the court below.

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court erred by failing to take an excessive responsibility against Defendant B, constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing. However, under Article 383 Subparag. 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 is imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where the lower court rendered a more minor sentence against Defendant B, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair does not constitute a legitimate

3. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, an appeal may be filed on the ground that: (a) there was a grave mistake in the judgment of the court below that affected the judgment; or (b) the amount of punishment was extremely unreasonable.

In this case where a more minor sentence was imposed against Defendant C, the argument that the lower court’s error in finding evidence and fact-finding, which belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, or that the determination of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, the judgment of the court below that affected the conclusion of

w. This may be claimed as the grounds of appeal.

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against Defendant D, the assertion that the lower court erred in recognizing the fact that belongs to the exclusive authority of the lower court, a fact-finding court, does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, Defendant D also appealed to the remainder of the judgment of the court below, but the appellate brief did not state the grounds for appeal and did not state the grounds for appeal.

5. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Ki-taik-taik

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Chief Justice Kim Shin-chul

Justices Kim Gin-young