Do 2014 6207 A. Robbery

(b) Fraud;

(c) Violation of the Act on Punishment for Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment, Etc. (Robbery, Bodily Injury, etc.)

(d) Special larceny;

(e) Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (Joint Bribery);

(f) Forgery of private documents;

(g) Exercising forged private documents;

(h) Special lectures;

(i) Violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business;

(j) Larceny;

(k) Damage to property;

(c) Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (Joint Intrusion upon Residence);

(m) A special thief;

(n) Injury;

(o) Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (Inflictings, Deadly Weapons, etc.);

(m) Illegal uttering of official documents;

(c) Preparation for robbery;

1. (a) . b. d. e. g. g. H.;

A

2.(a)(d)(e)(k)(l)(m); and

B

3.c. d. n. C

Defendant 1

Attorney Park Jong-soo (Korean National Assembly) D (For Defendant 1, 3)

Attorney E (Defendant 2)

Busan High Court Decision 2013689 decided May 1, 2014

July 10, 2014

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant A’s grounds for appeal, only in the case of death penalty, life imprisonment, imprisonment with prison labor for more than ten years, or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years, a final appeal against Defendant A is allowed. Thus, the allegation that Defendant A’s appeal is unfair because it is too unreasonable in the instant case where Defendant A’s punishment is sentenced to minor punishment. Thus, the legitimate grounds for final appeal cannot be the grounds for final appeal.

2. As to Defendant B’s grounds for appeal, the argument that Defendant B’s appeal was erroneous in the judgment of the original court by reducing the amount of punishment against Defendant B, and that Defendant B did not reduce the amount of punishment, thereby violating the principle of equality by failing to take the reduction of the amount of punishment, or by failing to take the grounds for mitigation of Defendant B’s number as the grounds for sentencing, constitutes an unfair argument for sentencing. However, according to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal that was made only for a death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for not less than 10 years, or for a case where Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with or without prison labor, is allowed, and thus, the above argument that the amount of punishment imposed in the instant case that was sentenced to a more minor punishment against the Defendant is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C

According to the record, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and only asserted that the sentencing was unfair on the grounds of appeal. In such a case, the allegation that the judgment of the court of first instance was erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles cannot serve as a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case of death penalty, imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than ten years, or imprisonment without prison labor, a final appeal for the reason of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the defendant's appeal against the defendant is unfair because it is too minor in the instant case that the punishment is sentenced to a more minor punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for final appeal.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim So-young