Do 2017 4809 A. Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (recovering and receiving)

B. Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds

(c) Offering of a bribe (referring to a modified crime: A person who gives a bribe);

(d) Obstructing the exercise of discretionary rights;

(e) The prevention of corruption and the establishment and operation of the committee on the rights and interests of citizens;

Violation of law

(f) Acceptance of a bribe;

G. Violation of the Political Funds Act

1. (a). (b)

A

2. Marina:

B

Defendant A and Prosecutor (Objection against Defendant A)

Attorney EN (N for Defendant A)

Law Firm Corporation (Limited) DO (for Defendant B),

Attorney EO, EP, DP, Q, DR

Seoul High Court Decision 2016No 2893 decided March 23, 2017

June 19, 2017

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

The essential contents of the principle of balance between crimes and the principle of responsibility in the deliberation of sentencing and the judgment of sentencing of the court below.

Defendant A’s allegation of the grounds of appeal that there was an error of infringement constitutes an unfair claim for sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, punishment of death or imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than ten years; or

Inasmuch as an appeal against the Defendant is permitted only in a case sentenced to an elevated sentencing on the ground that the sentencing was unfair, the appeal against the Defendant

In this case, which is sentenced to a more minor punishment, the punishment, including the above argument B, is too unreasonable.

The assertion of the purport that the appeal can not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by a public prosecutor

The change in this case by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone on the grounds as stated in the judgment below

Of the facts charged, the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Aggravations for Police Officers Haon on November 2012, 201

half (Acceptances of good offices) parts and teachers to give bribe, and the part that interferes with the exercise of ex officio abuse rights by Defendant B;

portion of the violation of the Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of Commission for Rights and Interests of the People, and the acceptance of bribe

In the absence of reasonable doubt, the finding that it is difficult to consider that it has been proven to the extent that it excludes a reasonable doubt shall be guilty.

The judgment of the court of first instance recognized was reversed and sentenced to not guilty.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is determined.

the court below's determination as to the value of evidence, such as the assertion of the grounds of appeal, or the court below's determination as to the value of evidence; or

There is no wrong error, such as deviating from the limit of free evaluation of evidence against Li and experience rules.

On the other hand, as to the guilty part of the judgment of the original court and the part which the prosecutor judged not guilty on the grounds of the judgment

Although the appeal was filed by the Do, it can be seen that the petition of appeal or the statement of reasons for appeal contains a statement of reasons for appeal.

(2).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

this judgment is subject to this judgment.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kwon Soon-il