beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the allegation that there was an error of law in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, or in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is alleged by Defendant A as grounds of appeal, or that the lower court did not consider it as subject
In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, imprisonment with or without labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years has been pronounced, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment of the court below had influenced
Therefore, in this case where the defendant A was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the court below erred in the misconception of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, and violation of the presumption of innocence, or finding facts based on the judgment of the court below as to the selection of evidence and probative value, or points out the misapprehension of legal principles on the premise of facts different from the facts acknowledged by the court below cannot be a legitimate ground
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant B was guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act among the charges charged against Defendant B
In so determining, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on attempted suspension, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in violation of the principle of proportionality and the right of equality.
However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.