Cases
2016Do2930(a) Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission
violation of applicable rate
(b) Violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name;
(c) Disclosure of official secrets
Defendant
1.(a)(b).
A
2.(b)
B
Appellant
Defendants
Defense Counsel
Attorney CA (the national election for the defendant A)
Attorney BW, BX, CB (private ships for Defendant B)
Judgment of remand
Supreme Court Decision 2015Do9123 Decided November 12, 2015
The judgment below
Suwon District Court Decision 2015No6647 Decided January 29, 2016
Imposition of Judgment
May 12, 2016
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal
Examining the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, it is justifiable for the lower court to maintain the first instance judgment that collected KRW 1,207,851,400 from Defendant A for the reasons indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and light power, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the timing of calculating the amount of additional collection.
Other grounds of appeal by Defendant A are not legitimate grounds of appeal, as they are alleged in the grounds of appeal by Defendant A as grounds of appeal, or by the court below as they are not subject to adjudication ex officio.
2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal
The part rejected by the court of final appeal on the ground that the argument in the grounds of final appeal is groundless shall be no longer dealt with as the defendant becomes final and conclusive at the same time as the judgment is rendered, and the court remanded may not render a judgment contrary thereto. Thus, the defendant cannot make a claim as to this part as the grounds of final appeal, and it may not be a legitimate ground of final appeal to delay new arguments that had not been asserted as to the part in which the final and conclusive judgment was made (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4375, Apr. 24, 2008).
Upon examining the record, Defendant B’s ground of appeal cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal on the ground that it was rejected in the previous judgment of remanding the Supreme Court or was related to the part that was already final and conclusive.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Judges
Justices Park Sang-hoon
Domestic Judicial Ginkite
The Chief Justice Park Gyeong-hee
Justices Park Sang-ok