Whether it is reasonable to accept the preliminary charges without explicitly rejecting the primary charges of the prosecutor and to find the guilty guilty.

If the first instance court reached the conclusion that there is no evidence to acknowledge it as a result of the prosecutor's deliberation on the primary facts charged, and it is evident that the first instance court rejected the primary facts charged, even if it did not state the reason why the first instance court did not recognize the primary facts charged, it cannot be said that there is an error of law that did not attach the reason for the judgment with regard to the primary facts charged.

Articles 361-5, 254, and 39 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (71 High Court Decision 648)

All appeals filed by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

The gist of the first ground for appeal by the prosecutor is that the prosecutor prosecuted the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as the primary claim, and prosecuted the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as the time when the primary claim was made, and the court below judged only the conjunctive charges without any explanation or explanation of the reason rejecting the facts charged. The second ground for appeal is that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the reasoning of the judgment below, and the second ground for appeal is that the amount of the punishment imposed on the defendant et al. is unreasonable, and the first ground for appeal by the defendant et al. was without any evidence, and the court below found the defendant et al. guilty without any evidence. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the facts against the rules of evidence, and the second ground for appeal by the court below is unreasonable.

First, we examine the first ground for appeal of the prosecutor;

According to the records of the case, the first case was prosecuted as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as the receipt of the indictment as of July 23, 1971, and was prosecuted as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as of November 26, 1973. The court below examined the facts charged as to the punishment of a primary claimant special mitt crime, but there is no evidence sufficient for the defendant to deny it and recognize it to others. Since only the conjunctive facts charged were led to confession, it can be seen that the defendant accepted the conjunctive facts charged as a whole, and it can be seen that the defendant was guilty.

In light of the form of a public prosecution and the progress of a trial, it is evident that even if there is no reason to acknowledge the primary facts charged in the judgment, it is an indirect intent to reject the primary facts charged, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is an error of law not calling for the reason for the judgment. Accordingly, the prosecutor's objection to this opinion cannot be accepted.

Then, the first ground for appeal by the defendant et al. is examined as to the first ground for appeal by the defendant et al., and the various evidences adopted by the court below after the lawful examination of evidence are examined in light of the records, and this issue cannot be accepted as well as the first ground for appeal by the defendant et al.

Finally, in light of the records, a comprehensive review of the facts that are the second ground for appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant, etc. as well as the second ground for appeal by the defendant, etc., and whether there are various conditions for sentencing, such as the motive, means, result, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the determination of the punishment imposed by the court below is inappropriate, and it is not considered that the amount of the punishment imposed by the defendant, etc. is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, each of the above arguments is groundless.

Therefore, all appeals filed by the prosecutor and the defendant pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)