beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of a supplementary statement of grounds of appeal, etc. submitted after the period for submitting a written grounds of appeal elapses).
1. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal
A. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (affort) among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
B. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A and C on the ground that there was no proof of a crime on the fact that each of the instant facts charged was prepared for Defendant A and C (except for the fact that Defendant C prepared false official documents related to “On-Road Operation Evaluation Statement within the distance of port from among the number of telecommunica fuel cell cells operations”) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
(c)
Defendant
The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A and B on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the fact of the ex post facto bribery, which is part of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A and B, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is a logical and empirical error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.