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 found Defendant A guilty of receiving a bribe from Defendant D and Defendant B among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on
2. Examining the reasoning of Defendant B’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 B was guilty of the facts charged in this case for the reasons indicated in its holding, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, a final appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where Defendant B was sentenced to minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for final appeal.
3. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A on the grounds that there was no proof of the crime, on the grounds that Defendant C received a bribe from Defendant C among the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant C’s offering of each bribe, and Defendant F’s offering of a bribe.
In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it did not err by exceeding the limit of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
On the other hand, the prosecutor of the lower judgment against Defendant A.