beta
Text
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,00, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts (with regard to the judgment of the court below), although there was no fact that the Defendants committed each of the crimes of this case as stated in each of the facts charged in this case, all of the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and admitting the Defendants guilty of each of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the judgment of the court below of the second instance against the Defendants on the unfair sentencing (as to the judgment of the court below of second instance: a fine of KRW 6 million; a fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence of the second judgment against the Defendants by the prosecutor (as to the second judgment of the court below), is too unfasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio determination, the first and second instances of appeal against the Defendants were examined and tried in combination with the first and second instances of appeal against the Defendants. Each of the crimes of the first and second judgment against the Defendants is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, both the first and second judgment can no longer be maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.
B. The extent of the formation of a conviction for finding the Defendants guilty in a criminal trial (with regard to the judgment of the lower court) should be such that there is no reasonable doubt as to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts. However, this is not required to the extent of excluding all possible doubts, and the rejection of evidence recognized as probative value by causing a suspicion without reasonable grounds is not allowed as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.
Supreme Court Decision 99 delivered on September 13, 1994