2015Do20307 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc., Establishment of Places for Gambling

Violation of the Forestry Industry Promotion Act;

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

Defendants

Attorney N. (Court line for the defendant A)

Attorney AO (the national election for the defendant B)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015No3297 decided December 10, 2015 (Separation)

February 23, 2016

All appeals are dismissed.

Of the judgment of the court below, the first part of the first part of the judgment of the court below shall be added.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

According to the records, Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal are unreasonable.

the court below's determination of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles

The argument to this effect is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty, imprisonment for life or for not less than ten years.

Defendant A is allowed to file an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing only in a case on which the Treasury rendered a ruling of unfair sentencing.

in this case where a minor sentence is imposed, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is inappropriate is stated.

No ground of appeal by law shall be a ground of appeal.

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

According to the records, Defendant B’s failure to file a judgment of the first instance and unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In addition, misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of legal principles on the second trial date of the court below.

The grounds for appeal have been withdrawn. In this case, the judgment of the court below is against the rules of evidence and the reasons therefor.

The assertion that there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty, imprisonment for life or for not less than ten years.

Defendant B is allowed to file an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing only in a case on which the Treasury rendered a ruling of unfair sentencing.

in this case where a minor sentence is imposed, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is inappropriate is stated.

No ground of appeal by law shall be a ground of appeal.

3. As to Defendant C’s ground of appeal

According to the records, Defendant C appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal are unreasonable.

the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and misapprehension of the legal principle.

The assertion that there is an error is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty, imprisonment for life or for not less than ten years.

Defendant C is allowed to file an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing only in a case on which the Treasury rendered a ruling of unfair sentencing.

in this case where a minor sentence is imposed, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is inappropriate is stated.

No ground of appeal by law shall be a ground of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and it is evident that the judgment of the court below is omitted.

Therefore, it is decided to revise Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure by the assent of all participating Justices.

It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

February 23, 2016

The presiding judge shall keep the record of the Justice

Justices Park Byung-hee

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jae-han