beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Of the facts charged against Defendant A and B, the lower court convicted Defendant A and B of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes") (a) as if Defendant A and B conspired to lend KRW 300 million to W around March 14, 2012, the lower court found Defendant A and B of occupational breach of trust that paid KRW 300 million investment to S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “S”) who had no possibility of investment value and recovery, and (b) on July 2, 2012, the lower court convicted Defendant A and B of all of the charges.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent and intent of unlawful acquisition and intent of occupational breach of trust.
2. As to the Defendants’ charge of violating the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement) among the facts charged against the Defendants, the lower court convicted the Defendants of the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement) that the Defendants conspired to use KRW 1.288,97 million in total for personal purposes, as shown in the first instance judgment cited by the lower court from July 13, 2012 to November 6, 2012, as shown in the list of crimes 1 attached to the judgment of the first instance, which was cited by the lower court.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of unlawful acquisition, intent, and joint principal offender of the occupational embezzlement.
3. Of the facts charged against Defendant C and D, the lower court, in collusion with Defendant C and D on August 23, 201, as to the violation of the Act of the Specific Economic Crimes (affort).