beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of both violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) among the facts charged against Defendant A, and violation of the Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of Civil Rights Commission by the Republic of Korea, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, 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 on job relevance
2. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal
A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record as to the charge of taking property in breach of trust against Defendant A and the violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds against Defendants, the lower court’s maintenance of the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendants A on the ground that there was no proof of a crime, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, all of the facts charged against Defendant A, including the charge of taking property in breach of trust, violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, and violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the free
Meanwhile, although the prosecutor appealed against the entire judgment of the court below, the prosecutor did not state the grounds of appeal against the conviction against Defendant A in the petition of appeal or the grounds of appeal.
B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s occupational embezzlement against Defendant A and Defendant E on the grounds stated in its reasoning.