beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor for erroneous determination of facts (as to all the defendants), 1. A of the facts charged in this case.
In addition, it can be presumed that the blasting stone inside the land in question was stolen as much as the quantity of sludge buried in the land in question is presumed to be 7,428 tons, and the quantity of sludge was calculated by multiplying the area and height of the part stored or reclaimed in the land in this case by the area and the proportion of sludge. It is clear that Defendant A stored and filled the above quantity of sludge from May 17, 2003 and January 6, 2004 to December 15, 2010, and average value each month is merely a presumption calculated by dividing the total sum of sludge by one month. Thus, as long as the total period of storage and reclamation of sludge and total quantity are specified, all of the charges in this case against the Defendants are proved.
B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (as to both the defendants A: the sentence of imprisonment of 2 years in suspension of execution and fine of 5 million won in August, and the limited partnership company of the defendant: fine of 1 million won in the case of defendant B) is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts (as to all of the defendants), the prosecutor shall present the evidence that there is a criminal fact in the criminal procedure. Even if the prosecutor's appeal is unreasonable and the defendant's appeal is false, it cannot be disadvantageous to the defendant. The proof of the criminal fact should have a judge have high probability to recognize it to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty even if there is no evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do163, Nov. 30, 2007). Based on the above legal doctrine, the part of the lower judgment’s acquittal against the Defendants is not guilty.