A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

(b) Aid in violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act;

1. A.

2. B

Defendants

Law Firm (with Limited Liability) AI (for Defendant A)

AK, AL, andN

AO Law Firm (for Defendant B)

Attorney AP, AP, Q, AX

Seoul High Court Decision 2013 - 3613 decided February 6, 2014

April 24, 2014

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

A. As to the first ground of appeal, since the court of final appeal ex post facto examines the judgment of the appellate court, matters not subject to an adjudication in the appellate court are not attributable to the scope of adjudication in the court of final appeal, and thus, the defendant cannot be considered as the grounds of final appeal for reasons other than those not alleged in the appellate court as grounds of appeal or subject to an ex officio adjudication (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do2104, Jun. 30, 2006; 2013Do1079, Apr. 11, 2013).

The argument that there was a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the calculation of the amount of collection and a violation of the precedents in the judgment of the court of first instance is nothing more than that of Defendant A’s appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was not subject to the judgment of the court of final appeal by Defendant A, and cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, ex officio examination of the judgment below

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the argument that there is an error in the misapprehension of facts as to the sentencing conditions and the violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, which exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence is an assertion of unfair sentencing. However, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the sentencing

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, there is a misapprehension of the legal principle as to the establishment of the crime of bribery assistance in the judgment of the court of first instance. The ground of appeal is merely a mere fact that Defendant B did not appeal the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing and only Defendant B did not appeal the matters not considered to be subject to the judgment of the court of first instance. Furthermore, even after ex officio examination of the judgment below, there is no error

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the argument that there is an error of law beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence as to sentencing discretion is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing. According to Article 383 subparag. 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 is imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where Defendant B was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the sentencing

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 Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Jae-han