2017Do19497 (a) Interference with business

(b) Violation of the Act on Testimony and Appraisal at the National Assembly;

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

Law Firm B

Attorney C, JY, D, JB, JZ

Seoul High Court Decision 2017No1966 Decided November 14, 2017

May 15, 2018

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to interference with the relevant business when entering the F.F.

A. Joint performance of a crime by conspiracy is not premised on the fulfillment of the elements of a crime by all accomplices. It is possible to cooperate with them to strengthen the decision-making on the act. Whether the act constitutes it should be determined by comprehensively taking into account each person’s understanding degree of the result of the act, the size of participation in the act, intent to control the act, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006). In addition, in relation to accomplices who are co-processed by more than two persons, conspiracy does not require any legal fixed punishment, but is a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons to jointly process the crime and realize the crime. Thus, if there is a combination of intent by going through a series of order or impliedly, even if the process of the whole conspiracy does not exist, it is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011).

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant conspiredd in sequence to interfere with the duties of the interview committee members and the school members in order for the Defendant to select I, P, L, K, etc. as a successful candidate for an occasional recruitment of athletic qualification in the 2015 F. The lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged against the Defendant.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

2. As to interference with the Franchis affairs related to school affairs

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which is the purport that M interfered with the academic management work of the F Department of the F Department by fraud in collusion with AB, AC, etc., by taking advantage of the fact that the Defendants and AB, AC, etc. were the combination of doctors to give preference to the recognition of attendance and the evaluation of sexual performance among M in relation to the subjects, including “AF,” etc. during the first semester 2016.

B. Examining the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on co-principals, obstruction

3. As to the violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly

A. Whether a witness's testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to his memory should be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the relevant examination procedure as a whole, rather than by the simple Section of the testimony. Where the meaning of the testimony in question is unclear or diversely understood, the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, the circumstances in which the testimony was made, etc. shall be determined clearly after clarifying the meaning of the testimony in question (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5252 delivered on December 27, 2001), and even though the testimony is not a basic matter, it does not affect the establishment of perjury unless it is a false statement (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do3069 delivered on June 8, 1982).

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices FININ et al.

Justices Ko Young-han

Justices Kim Gin-young

Justices Cho Jae-chul