Whether the general provisions of the Criminal Act on accomplices apply to a crime such as acceptance of money, goods, etc. (negative), and in cases where there is no separate penal provision for a donor such as money, goods, etc., whether the act of instigating or aiding and abetting the donor to commit the crime committed by the donor constitutes an accomplice relationship (negative)

In relation to the existence of an act in favor of two or more persons, such as the receipt of money and valuables, there is no general provision on accomplices or aiding and abetting crimes. Therefore, unless there is a separate provision on punishment against a person who has provided money and valuables, the act of offering money and valuables does not lead to an accomplice relationship with respect to the other party's crime that requires the existence of an act in favor of him/her, and only aids and abets the act of offering money and valuables does not constitute an accomplice relationship with regard to the other party's crime.

Articles 30, 31, and 32 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Do2451 Decided April 25, 198 (Gong1988, 928) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5158 Decided December 28, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 440) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1696 Decided July 22, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2100)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 2013No613 decided May 30, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding Defendant 1 guilty of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged in the instant case, violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. In so doing, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the logical and empirical rules

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where Defendant 1 was sentenced to a minor sentence, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not legitimate grounds for

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant 2 guilty of the charge of giving rise to breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical

Meanwhile, Defendant 2 filed an appeal against the remaining guilty portion of the judgment below, but there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal nor any statement of the grounds for appeal as to the grounds for appeal.

3. As to Defendant 3’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant 3 guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court 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 doctrine on

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against Defendant 3, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate

4. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

In relation to the existence of an act in favor of two or more persons, such as the receipt of money and valuables, there is no application of the general provisions of the Criminal Act concerning accomplices or aiding and abetting. Therefore, insofar as there is no separate penal provision against the person who provided money and valuables, the act of providing money and valuables does not lead to an accomplice relationship with respect to the other party's crime requiring the existence of an act in favor of the money and valuables (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do2451, Apr. 25, 198; 2002Do1696, Jul. 22, 2002) and the act of aiding and abetting or aiding and abetting the act of offering money and valuables does not lead to an accomplice relationship with regard to the other party's crime.

The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found Defendant 2 guilty on the ground that there is no proof of a crime as to aiding and abetting the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against Defendant 2, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor cannot be readily concluded that Defendant 2 committed the crime of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act against the non-indicted 1, i.e., the crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against the non-indicted 1, and that the non-indicted 2 committed the act of aiding and abetting the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against the non-indicted 1, not subject to punishment, and introduced the non-indicted 1 to Defendant 1.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court’s 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

5. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)