beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, for each of the defendants B and C, shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) Although there was no conspiracy to commit the crime, such as misconception of facts as to the conspiracy of each of the crimes in this case and misapprehension of the legal principles, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of all the charges on the ground that Defendant B conspiredd with Defendant B, it erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to co-principals in violation of the rules of evidence.
The act of removing data stored by the defendant et al. on the intent to destroy evidence and the act of destroying evidence is a normal procedure conducted by the defendant B, who was authorized to process the data stored in the computer in accordance with the National Intelligence Service's "Guidelines on the Use of Storage Devices", and there was no intention to destroy a specific evidence or damage a computer hard disc. Although some of the computers were not subject to sanctions, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of destroying evidence and damage to public goods.
Article 22(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “A person subject to disciplinary action shall be subject to disciplinary action against a person subject to disciplinary action who is the chief of the planning and general administration in charge of the planning and general administration of the affairs of the public service ethics support office, budget personnel service and other matters concerning operational support,” even though the defendant’s act of mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles is recognized as an act of destruction of evidence regarding the criminal or disciplinary action of another person, if the case, such as the civilian inspection of the
In light of the nature of data held by the public service ethics support center of the legitimate act, the illegality of the defendants' act is excluded as a legitimate act that satisfies the requirements such as legitimacy of the purpose, reasonableness of the method, balance of legal interests and urgency, and supplement.
(v)the sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too vague.