2018Do12121 Attempted coercion

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

Law Firm B, Attorneys C, D, E, F, G, H

Seoul High Court Decision 2018No1093 Decided July 18, 2018

October 25, 2018

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion on admissibility of the recording file

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing this determination, on the ground that recording of this conversation as a party to a telephone conversation with the Defendant does not violate Article 3(1) of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, and thus, the files rerecording the contents of the recording or the instant telephone recording file (No. 18-1 of the Prosecutor’s Evidence List No. 18-1) which appears as a duplicate of the file is not an illegally collected evidence.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility

2. As to the conspiracy and intent of the crime of coercion

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing this determination, on the ground that there was a combination of intent to commit the instant crime that the Defendant and J would leave K in the management of L Group, and that the Defendant was aware that his act with respect to I could constitute coercion.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the conspiracy and intent of coercion, contrary to what is alleged

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young

Justices Cho Jae-chul

Justices Noh Jeong-hee and Justice Noh Jeong-hee