beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (hereinafter “the Act on the Regulation of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds”), the appellate court may render ex officio a judgment on the grounds of appeal stated in the petition of appeal or contained in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within the period for submission of a written reason for appeal: Provided, That even in cases where the grounds affecting the judgment are not exceptionally included in the statement of reasons for appeal (Articles 364(1) and 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Therefore, even if the defendant or his/her defense counsel makes a statement in the appellate court of appeal on matters not included in the statement of reasons for appeal,
It cannot be seen (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do1234, Sept. 22, 1998; 2006Do88, May 31, 2007). Of the grounds for appeal, the part on violation of the Regulation on Concealment of Criminal Proceeds as to the violation of the Act on Regulation of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds is not alleged in the grounds for appeal by the defendant, but by the defense counsel, as to the grounds that the defendant submitted a lawsuit at the expense or made a statement at the trial date after the lapse of the period for appeal, and
shall not be deemed to exist.
In addition, examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment in light of the records, including evidence duly admitted, the first instance judgment conviction and fact finding as to the violation of the Act on Regulation of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds among the facts charged in the instant case does not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Thus, the grounds of appeal do not affect the conclusion of the lower court that maintained the first instance judgment.
Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act in determining that the grounds for the assertion were not separately determined.
2. As to the offering of a bribe to G, the lower court on the grounds stated in its reasoning, on G, and on January 2, 2015.