beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The judgment below
In the end of the order, the payment to the deceased and the duplicate payment is made.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the payment to the deceased and the occupational embezzlement of the method of double payment among the facts charged in the instant case.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on embezzlement in the crime of occupational embezzlement and intent of unlawful acquisition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. On the grounds of appeal by the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of occupational embezzlement and fraud through false accounting of expenses among the facts charged in the instant case.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine without exhaust all necessary deliberations.
In addition, according to 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing
In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. Since it is apparent that the part of innocence was omitted by mistake in the judgment of the court below, it is corrected to add it pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.