beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendants guilty of each of the facts charged against Defendant A and each of the offering of bribe as indicated in the judgment among the facts charged against Defendant B is acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and by exceeding the bounds of the principle
In light of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, each of the acceptance of bribe in Defendant A’s judgment constitutes a crime of acceptance of bribe, and the statute of limitations has not yet expired since the instant prosecution was instituted seven years after the end of the crime.
Therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport does not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the application of statute of limitations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
Meanwhile, 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 on Defendant B, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not
2. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that there was no proof of crime regarding the charge of partially accepting bribe and the charge of partially offering bribe among the facts charged against the Defendants.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, but violated logical and empirical rules.