2017 Do 96 Do 96

(b) Property in breach of trust;

1. A.

2. (a) C.

3. (b) D

4. (b) E.

5.(b)F

Defendant 1

Attorney CH (For Defendant 1)

Attorney CI (National Ship for Defendant 2)

Attorney CE (for Defendant 3)

Law Firm BZ (for Defendant 5)

Attorney in charge CA, CJ, CK

Gwangju District Court Decision 2016No 3023 Decided December 14, 2016

March 16, 2017

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

According to the record, Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and only asserted the illegality of sentencing on the grounds of the appeal. In such a case, Defendant A’s assertion to the effect that the violation of the rules of evidence and the violation of the rules of evidence and the incomplete trial are illegal is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal

According to the record, Defendant C appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and only asserted the illegality of sentencing on the grounds of the appeal. In such a case, Defendant C’s assertion to the effect that the violation of the rules of evidence and the violation of the rules of evidence and the incomplete trial are illegal is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Examining the reasoning for Defendant D’s appeal in light of evidence duly adopted by the first instance court and the first instance court on the grounds of the first instance judgment, the lower court’s determination that the instant public prosecution against Defendant D was recognized as guilty on the grounds as stated in the judgment is justifiable, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of giving rise to breach of trust by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the assertion of the grounds for appeal, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the grounds of appeal, thereby violating the logical and empirical rule, thereby going against the limitation of free conviction, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of giving rise to breach of trust.

4. As to Defendant E’s appeal, the appeal court may investigate and determine only within the limit of the appeal filed based on the grounds of appeal. Thus, the grounds of appeal should clearly state the grounds of appeal in detail, and the grounds of the original judgment’s violation of the specific Acts and subordinate statutes. Therefore, unless the grounds of appeal are clearly and clearly stated in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be deemed that the legitimate grounds of appeal have been submitted.

Defendant E did not submit a written reason for final appeal within the submission period, and only written “misunderstanding of the legal principles” in the petition of final appeal, but did not clearly state the specific reasons for the violation of the statutes of the original judgment, so it cannot be deemed that Defendant E submitted a legitimate reason for final appeal.

5. Examining the reasoning for Defendant F’s appeal in light of evidence duly adopted by the first instance court and the first instance court on the grounds of the first instance judgment, Defendant F’s ground of appeal is found guilty of the instant public prosecution against Defendant F on the grounds of the same reasoning as the lower court’s judgment.

The judgment of the court is justifiable, and it does not perform all necessary deliberations such as the argument of the grounds for appeal at the same time, and there is no illegality of misapprehending the legal principles on the degree of proof and responsibility of proof in criminal trial, and credibility of confessions by violating the logical and empirical rules.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Jo Hee-de

Justices Park Sang-ok