beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant K’s grounds of appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant K of the charge of interference with bidding (excluding the part of acquittal) among the facts charged against Defendant K and of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery).
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment and scope of a crime of violation of Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, payment relationship for bribery, joint principal offense of interference with bidding, etc., or by omitting judgment, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant AL, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant AL of fraud, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on deception of fraud, deception on the part of the defrauded, etc., without exhaust all necessary
3. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that ordered the Defendant to additionally collect KRW 1,272,04,00,000 on the grounds of the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s ground of appeal on the part of the lower court, on the grounds in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court erred in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.