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. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, the lower court rejected Defendant C’s assertion that Defendant C did not take part in the crime of D on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, including the content of the supply contract to Korea hydroelectric Energy Co., Ltd., the importance of quality guarantee documents including the test report, its composition, and the purport of demanding submission of quality guarantee documents, etc., and found that the submission of part of the test report constitutes deception, and the causal relationship between the aforementioned deception and the payment of the total price of supplied goods constitutes deception. In so determining, the lower court rejected Defendant C’s assertion that Defendant C did not take part in the crime of D, and convicted Defendant C of all the charges against Defendant C.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above determination by the court below is justified, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the causal relationship with the criminal intent to acquire fraud and by misapprehending the legal principles on joint principal offenders, or by misapprehending
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s ground of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is reasonable to determine that the lower court convicted Defendant B of all of the fraud related to Defendant B’s test report of October 23, 2009 among the instant facts charged against Defendant B, the attempted fraud related to the test report of July 6, 2005, the fraud related to the test report of November 8, 2005, and the fraud related to the test report of November 8, 2005. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the impossible attempted fraud, the deception and the amount of
3...