beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, criminal facts should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court
(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found all of the charges of special injury modified at the lower court guilty.
The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing such fact-finding by the lower court, and is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belong to the free judgment of the lower court
In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to
2. As to the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, in a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court recognized the first instance court’s determination, which found it difficult to view the part concerning obstruction of business among the facts charged in the instant case as a business subject to protection of the crime of interference with business and rejected the Prosecutor’s allegation in the grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.