beta
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).
1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to Defendant A’s grounds for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the first instance court, the court below is justified in finding Defendant A guilty on all of the following grounds: (a) the facts modified in this case against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; (b) each fraud; (c) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); and (d) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Evidence).
In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, without exhausting all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
In addition, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the sentencing hearing and sentencing determination method of the fact-finding court by deviating from the inherent limitations of sentencing discretion is ultimately 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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of punishment is unfair in this case where Defendant A was sentenced to minor punishment is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant EN’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant EN guilty of the modified facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the principle of free evaluation of evidence violates logical and empirical rules.