beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part concerning the obstruction of business against Defendant D shall be reversed.
Defendant
D shall be subject to a fine of 20,000 won.
Reasons
1. Progress of litigation;
A. The lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case against the Defendants, and sentenced Defendant A and B to a fine of two million won, Defendant C and D, respectively.
B. Prior to remand, the Defendants appealed against the above judgment of the court below on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. The judgment of the court below prior to remand was reversed, and each of the charges of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. by Defendants A, B, and C was convicted, and each of the charges of interference with each of the duties was acquitted, and each of the charges against Defendant D was acquitted.
C. The Supreme Court’s reversal and remand 1) Defendant A, B, and C filed each appeal against the Defendants on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the guilty portion (the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act) of the judgment prior to remand. 2) The Supreme Court rendered a judgment prior to remand on the grounds that the grounds that the grounds of appeal on the guilty portion against Defendant A, B, and C was not indicated in the appellate brief.
① The appeal on the part of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. by Defendant A, B, and C is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle regarding the act of a political party and the presumption of innocence, or in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules. ② The appeal on the part of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. by the Prosecutor as to Defendant D is merely a dispute over the fact-finding prior to remand, and it is merely a dispute over the judgment of the lower court on the selection and probative value of the evidence belonging to the court of fact-finding prior to remand. The appeal on the part of the lower court’s judgment prior to remand did not err in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.