Do 2015 Do 11034 A. Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

B. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

(c) Occupational embezzlement;

(d) Occupational breach of trust;

E. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

A

Defendant

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015 592, 1112 (Joint) decided July 3, 2015

October 15, 2015

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the evidence duly adopted by the original judgment, the following grounds are as follows: (a) violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes against the Victims, Co., Ltd. (Embezzlement) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as indicated in the judgment of the lower court; (b) the termination of the tent of the victim Co., Ltd.; and (c) the victim

The judgment of the court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) in relation to shipping, china, china, china, china, china, Gawon Co., Ltd. in relation to the importation of management advisory fees, and violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Economic Crimes in relation to Echina, Doo Co., Ltd. in relation to Echina's business management advisory fee revenue, and violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Economic Crimes in relation to marine transportation, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, china, chio Co., Ltd., as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument to the effect that the judgment of the court of original instance is illegal by deviating from the inherent limits of the discretion of sentencing and the inherent limits of the discretion of sentencing, and thereby violating the principle of balanced sentencing or the principle of the caution of responsibility, constitutes an unfair argument for sentencing. However, according to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal against the defendant is allowed only in the case where death penalty, imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than 10 years, or imprisonment without prison labor, for an unfair reason, only in the case where the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 10 years, and thus, the argument to the effect that the judgment of the punishment is unfair in the instant case where the defendant was sentenced to a minor punishment cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Ko Young-han