beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted or acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the obstruction of business due to arbitrary act of submitting a interview notice sheet among the facts charged against Defendant A, B, and C concerning new recruitment in general service in 2013, the obstruction of business related to new employment in general service in 2015, the obstruction of business related to the public notice of promotion in 2016, the obstruction of business related to the public notice of promotion in 3 A in 2015 among the facts charged against Defendant D, the obstruction of business related to the public notice of promotion in 2015, the obstruction of business related to new employment in general service in 2015, and the obstruction of business related to the public notice of promotion in 3 A in 2015, among the facts charged against Defendant G, B, and C, Defendant G, N,O, P, and Q, on the ground that there was no proof of a crime.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of crime of interference with business by deceptive means, joint principal
2. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant D, the lower court found Defendant D guilty of aiding and abetting part of the charges against Defendant D, among the charges charged against Defendant D, as indicated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent, establishment, expectation, and perception of illegality of aiding and abetting
3. As to the Defendant H’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant H of the facts charged against Defendant H (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal).