beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court as to the Defendants’ allegation in the grounds of appeal on confiscation and collection, it is justifiable for the lower court to confiscate 8,335 copies (Evidence 31) of KRW 8,335 (Evidence 31) confiscated from Defendant B, and additionally collect KRW 5,277,310,000 from Defendant A, and KRW 213,250,000 from Defendant B, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confiscation and collection of KRW 213,250
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the remainder of Defendant A’s remaining grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of having committed fraud and attempted fraud among the modified facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A on the grounds stated 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 principle of non-
In addition, the argument that the statute of limitations has expired with respect to fraud regarding each construction work described in the table Nos. 1 and 2 as stated in the judgment of the court below among the charges modified against Defendant A, is already accepted in the court below. Thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.
Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred in violation of the principle of balanced criminal punishment and the principle of responsibility constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.
However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, it is argued that the punishment of Defendant A is too unreasonable.