beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant E’s grounds for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant E was guilty of the instant facts charged (excluding the acquittal part on the grounds of appeal) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of the facts charged, the infringement of defense rights, the principle of in
2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the reasons for Defendant F’s appeal, only in a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is pronounced, an appeal for the reason of sentencing is allowed, and thus, in the instant case where a fine is imposed against Defendant F, the allegation that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
3. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant G, there were errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 34(3) of the Act on misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 34(2) of the Act on misunderstanding of facts, or in violation of Article 109 subparag. 2 and Article 34(3) of the Act, the principle of statutoryism and clarity, and the principle of excessive prohibition, and the attorney-at-law’s unconstitutionality as Article 116 of the Act violated the legal principles on unconstitutionality of the Act on unconstitutionality since Article 116 of the Act was asserted by Defendant G as the grounds for appeal or by the court below without being considered as
B. Although examining I did not err by the lower judgment as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
4. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have determined that Defendant E was acquitted on the grounds that the instant facts charged (except for the guilty part) against Defendant E was committed in accordance with the criminal facts of the final judgment and the criminal intent of a single and continuous criminal act, based on the reasons stated in its reasoning.