Do 2018 Do 12426 A. Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

B. Violation of law by an attorney

C. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (aided and abetting Bribery)

1. (a) A;

2. C. C.

Defendant 1

DI, a legal entity (for defendant A),

Attorney J, DK, DL, DM

DN (for Defendant A) a legal entity

Attorney in charge DoOO

Attorney CZ (for Defendant C)

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Do370 decided July 19, 2018

November 9, 2018

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal (the statement of the grounds of appeal submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal is within the scope of supplement to the grounds of appeal) are determined.

1. Examining the reasoning of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, it is justifiable to have determined that the instant indictment against Defendant A was recognized as guilty on the grounds as stated in the judgment below, on the grounds as stated in the judgment below. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on a violation of logical and empirical rules, and thereby exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal, thereby going against the limitation of free evaluation of evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles on a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment, etc. due to the receipt of bribe by a third party.

Meanwhile, according to the record, Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and did not object to the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the recognition of the amount of acceptance of bribe, and Defendant A claimed the above assertion after the period for submitting a written reason for appeal. The court below held that there was no such error in the judgment of the first instance even if it is not a legitimate ground for appeal, but a supplementary appeal. The judgment of the court below is just, and in such a case, the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate ground for appeal. The allegation that there was an error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the recognition of the amount of acceptance of bribe in the judgment of the first instance is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning for Defendant C’s appeal in light of the evidence duly adopted by the lower court on the grounds of the original judgment, it is justifiable to have determined that the instant public prosecution against Defendant C was recognized as guilty on the grounds as stated in the judgment below, on the grounds as stated in the judgment below. There was no error of misapprehending the legal principles on aiding and abetting a violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Committed (Bribery) due to the receipt of a third party bribe, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the assertion of the grounds for appeal, and thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the allegation of the grounds for appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Jung-hwa-hwa

Justices Kim Jong-soo