logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.12.15 2016도15431
공직선거법위반
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to Article

Meanwhile, the court below's assertion that there was an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legal mistake is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal by Defendant A as the ground of appeal or by the court below as the subject of a judgment ex officio. The court below's failure to make a judgment on such ground is not a violation of law

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by deviating from the inherent limit of sentencing discretion is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot be

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s ground of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant B was guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 112(2)3 (e) of the Public Official Election

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed.

arrow