beta
Text
The judgment below
All convictions against Defendant D and F are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence admitted by the lower court, it is reasonable to have determined that the lower court convicted Defendant A of the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and each occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject of reporting on the shareholding status, the meaning
In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence admitted by the lower court, it is reasonable for the lower court to have found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds
3. As to Defendant D’s ground of appeal
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) Defendant D conspired with Defendant A, etc. even though the actual holder of the AL shares was Defendant A and AW; and (b) shares on March 30, 2012.