beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendants B and H, the above Defendants asserted unfair sentencing only on the grounds of appeal at the court below, and the court below did not consider the Defendants as the grounds for appeal, namely, the grounds that the court below deemed the Defendants as the grounds for appeal, i.e., misapprehending the legal principles on short-term financial business as prescribed by the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and violating the rules of evidence ex officio. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion of legal principles as to the above grounds for appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal
In addition, in this case where a sentence of imprisonment with labor for less than 10 years is imposed against the Defendants, the argument that the lower court’s sentencing was unfair or did not properly examine various circumstances that constitute the sentencing conditions cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.
2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to Defendant E’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding Defendant E guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Articles 44 subparag. 22 and 360(1) of the Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act, or by exceeding
In addition, in this case where a sentence of imprisonment for less than 10 years is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the court below's sentencing was unfair or did not properly examine the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.
3. As to the Defendant N’s grounds of appeal, the lower court: (a) provided the Defendant N with money to the Defendant J and L’s body and consistency of the statement on the grant of KRW 18 million and KRW 1 million; and (b) J and L.