A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

(b) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

(c) Aid in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

1. A.

2. (a) B

3. C. C.

Defendants

D Law Firm (For Defendant A and B)

Attorney E

Law Firm F (for Defendant A and B)

Attorney G, H, and I

Attorney J (Korean National Assembly for Defendant C)

Supreme Court Decision 2016Do3540 Decided June 23, 2016

Seoul High Court Decision 2016 - 1792 Decided February 2, 2017

April 27, 2017

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A and B’s grounds of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted Defendant A and B of this case’s charges (other than the part on which the Defendant was found innocent) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, without exhaust all necessary deliberations, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the identity of the facts charged, modification of indictment procedures, abuse of public prosecution rights, unlawful solicitation of the third party’s crime

The argument that the lower court’s judgment of sentencing erred by exceeding the inherent limit of the principle of balanced punishment or the principle of responsibility and thereby deviating from and abusing the discretionary authority of sentencing constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing. However, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where Defendant C was sentenced to a minor sentence, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence

3. Conclusion

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

presiding judge FININ Justice Jo Hee-de

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Park Sang-ok