logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.04.12 2015도16544
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by Defendant E, F’s grounds of appeal, Defendant H, J, and K’s grounds of appeal, and each of the grounds of supplementary appeal submitted by the Prosecutor are to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants

A. As to the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal, the argument that the lower judgment erred by violating the inherent limit of sentencing discretion constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

B. Examining the reasoning for Defendant C’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant C was guilty of all the charges except for the violation of the Act on the AS Claim of the Victims (hereinafter “the instant claim group”) among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant C (hereinafter “the instant claim group”) (hereinafter “the Act”), on the AS Claim of the Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “the Specific Economic Crimes Act”). In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the crime of altering or altering a private document, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

(c)

Defendant

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by D, E, and F in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, was subject to the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Evasion of Compulsory Execution and Concealment of Criminal Proceeds among the instant charges against Defendant D, E, and F (hereinafter “instant charges”).

arrow