logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.31 2014노1662
업무상횡령등
Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On May 30, 2014, the prosecutor (guilty of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) stated the “reason for Appeal” column in the petition of appeal filed by May 30, 2014. On July 14, 2014, the appellate brief stating that “The prosecutor shall state the grounds for appeal against the judgment of the lower court on the Defendant in this case on the grounds of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and unfair sentencing, as follows: (a) stated the grounds for appeal as to the acquittal portion of the lower court on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles; and (b) stated the grounds for appeal on the acquittal portion of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing as follows; and (c) stated the grounds for appeal on the allegation of unfair sentencing as “in the event the acquittal portion is reversed, new punishment should be determined including that portion, and thus, written as the grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing

However, in light of the fact that Article 361-5 subparag. 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "when there exists any reason to recognize the amount of punishment unreasonable," the grounds for appeal shall be prescribed as the grounds for appeal, and Article 155 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that "the grounds for appeal or the reply shall clearly state the grounds for appeal or the contents of the answer in detail," it shall not be deemed a legitimate statement in the grounds for appeal, on the ground that the phrase "scope of appeal" is simply stated in the "scope of appeal" in the petition of appeal without any other specific reasons (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8117, Jan. 31, 2008). However, the prosecutor stated in the first trial date ( September 3, 2014) that "the suspension of execution of the court below, in light of the frequency or embezzlement of acceptance, and the status of the defendant, etc., was filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing." However, this was not timely notified by the prosecutor.

arrow