beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).
1. As to the first ground for appeal, the lower court found the victim M&A guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) for the victim M&A (hereinafter “Specific Economic Crimes Act”) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.
2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below found the victim P guilty of fraud (excluding the part not guilty on the ground), the victim S, T, J, U, and I of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and each violation of the Act of the Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim V of the Specific Economic Crimes (excluding the part not guilty on the ground of appeal).
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, 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 and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the instrument without intention or intent of repayment in fraud
3. On the third ground of appeal, the court below found the victim B guilty of the violation of the Act of the Specific Economic Crimes (excluding the part of innocence) among the facts charged in this case on the ground of its stated reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination.