beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Even if the defendant or defense counsel stated matters not included in the statement of grounds for appeal in the appellate court, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as having grounds for appeal as alleged in the statement. However, it is not exceptionally included in the statement of grounds for appeal limited to those affecting the judgment.
A judgment may be rendered ex officio.
(2) The Defendant and his/her defense counsel present himself/herself on the first trial date and stated to the effect that he/she lodged an appeal on the grounds of “the mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing” on the grounds of “the grounds of appeal on September 21, 2018, which was submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel.” However, in light of the fact that the Defendant asserted only mistake of facts as the grounds of appeal on September 21, 2018, and thereafter, only claims on mistake of facts and did not separately assert unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed a legitimate grounds of appeal, and furthermore, even if examining the lower judgment, it does not seem that there exists a ground for ex officio
The Defendant received KRW 3,364,00 in the name of E, 3,364,00 as the expense of the head of the field office, and ② the part indicated in the attached Table Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 22 in the attached Table Nos. 9 in the attached Table Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16
However, since the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the public prosecutor (in fact-finding, unreasonable sentencing) and the prosecutor of the public prosecutor’s appeal on the acquittal portion of one reason, the fact that the Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, by deceiving the victim as stated in the attached Table Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 15, and 17, by deceiving the victim, can be acknowledged.
However, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.