2020Do11188. Breach of trust (the name of the crime partially recognized against Defendant A)

The name of partial conjunctive crime against Defendant B: Specific Case

Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Crimes (Misappropriation)

1. A;

2. B

Defendants

Law Firm Won, Attorneys Kimdo-hun, and Shin Young-soo (Defendant A)

Attorney Yu Han-chul (for the defendant A)

Attorney Lee Dong-sung (the national election for the defendant B)

Seoul High Court Decision 2019No2113 Decided July 22, 2020

December 10, 2020

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant A of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) which is an ancillary charge. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

In light of the record, the lower court did not err by failing to comply with the lower court’s trial procedure.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing shall be allowed. In this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the charges. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on illegal solicitation in the crime of taking property in breach

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing shall be allowed. In this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant B, the argument to the effect that the punishment is too unreasonable is not legitimate

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 Park Sang-ok

Justices Ansan-chul

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Kim Jong-hwan