Do 2016 Do 10655 Ga. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

(b) Fraud;

C. Violation of the Act on the Protection and Investigation of Burial Cultural Properties

(d) Attempted fraud;

(e) Interference with business;

F. Violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act

1. (a) b. c. d. e.

B

2.(c).

A

Defendant and Prosecutor (Defendant B)

Attorney FP (Korean National Assembly for Defendant B)

Attorney ET (private ships for Defendant B)

Attorney EX, DL (private ships for Defendant B)

H (private ships for Defendant B) a legal entity

Attorney in charge

Law Firm Corporation (Limited) F Q (SP for Defendant B)

Attorney FR, FS, FT, FU

FV, a legal entity (private ships for Defendant B)

Attorney FW, FX, FY, FZ, GA, GB

Attorney D (private ships for all of the defendants)

Attorney GC (Korean Bureau for Defendant A)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015No 2253, 20152415 (Joint Judgment) decided July 1, 2016

December 22, 2017

all appeals shall be dismissed.

Of the grounds of the judgment of the original court, it shall be corrected by adding the facts of the attached crime to the facts of the crime committed by Defendant A.

Each written statement of reasons for appeal, such as a supplementary statement of reasons for appeal, submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting a written reason for appeal, shall be determined to the extent that it supplements the reasons for appeal.

1. Examining the evidence of Defendant B’s grounds for appeal by adopting the first instance court’s judgment lawfully and examining the evidence, it is justifiable to determine that Defendant B’s guilty of the following facts: (a) around November 5, 2008, among the facts charged against Defendant B on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the lower court, the fraud was committed; (b) the attempted fraud was committed; and (c) the obstruction of business; and (d) the violation of the Act on the Protection and Investigation of Burial Cultural Properties for the Protection of and Investigation into Cultural Properties, on the grounds of the same reasoning as indicated in the judgment of the lower court. In short, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on obstruction of business by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby deviating from the limits of free conviction due to the violation of logic and experience and thereby going against the legal rules of logic and experience; (c) public offering, conspiracy, escape; (d) fraud; (e) the commencement of execution; and (e) the commencement of execution by deception; and (e) the judgment did not adversely affect the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case of death penalty, imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than ten years, or imprisonment without prison labor, a final appeal against Defendant B for the reason of unfair sentencing is allowed. The assertion that Defendant B’s punishment is unfair in the instant case, which was sentenced to a more minor punishment than that, does not constitute legitimate grounds for final appeal.

2. Examining the evidence that Defendant A’s grounds for appeal were duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court on the grounds of the appeal, it is reasonable to determine that the point of violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act relating to J in the instant indictment against Defendant A, among the facts charged against Defendant A on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the lower court, constitutes a conviction. In short, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby going against the logical and empirical rule, thereby going beyond the bounds of the due diligence of free evaluation.

In addition, according to the record, Defendant A filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance, and Defendant A asserted that Defendant A had misperception of facts on the grounds of appeal regarding the significance of violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act of the Seoul Northern District Court 2012 High Order 961, which was 961, and the fact of violation of the Act on the Protection and Investigation of Burial Cultural Properties, among the facts charged against Defendant A, as well as the fact of violation of the Act on the Protection and Investigation of Cultural Properties of the Seoul Northern District Court. Defendant A withdrawn the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts on the second trial date of the judgment of the lower court. In this case, the judgment of the lower court of this case against Defendant A, among the facts charged against Defendant A, is against the Cultural Heritage Protection Act of the Seoul Northern District Court of 2012 High Order 961, which was 961, as well as the fact that there was a mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, omission of judgment, etc., did not have legitimate grounds for appeal.

Meanwhile, Defendant A’s other grounds of appeal do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, for the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, the court below found that among the facts charged against the defendant B of this case against the defendant B, the violation of Article 3 (1) 1 of the former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 3 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (Embezzlement) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes due to the violation of Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (Embezzlement) was not proven, the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds of the judgment, and sentenced the defendant B to the charge of embezzlement and acquittal of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes due to the violation of Article 3 (1) 2 of the former Act and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act.

In light of the record, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the amount of profit, etc. in the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by violating the logic and experience of the court below.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals shall be dismissed, and since there is a clear clerical error in the criminal facts of Defendant A among the grounds of the original judgment, it is corrected to add the facts of the attached crime. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Jae-chul et al.

Justices Ko Young-han

Justices Jo Hee-de

Justices Kwon Soon-il

A person shall be appointed.