Do 2018 7441 A. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

(b) Occupational breach of trust

(c) Compulsory indecent acts;

(d) An accusation;

(e) Honorary damage;

(f) Defamation by publications;

A

Defendant and Prosecutor

JA legal entity

Attorney IK, IN,O, and IP

Gwangju High Court Decision 2017No 438 decided April 26, 2018

July 26, 2018

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal by a prosecutor

The court below held that the part of the public prosecution of this case, among the facts of this case, occupational breach of trust due to the acquisition of expenses for business promotion, violation of the Act on the Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes Aggravated Punishment, etc. due to the acquisition of expenses for the management of the Occar Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Economic Crimes Act"), occupational breach of trust, forced indecent act, false act, reputation damage by publication, and reputation damage, were all acquitted.

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty to recognize a reduced fact that does not change the indictment by the court, contrary to the logical and empirical rules, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty to recognize a reduced indictment by the court.

2. Determination on Defendant’s grounds of appeal

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the part on occupational breach of trust due to the violation of the Act on Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the acquisition of expenses incurred in U’s entrustment of business among the facts charged in the instant case, and the payment of expenses incurred in domestic helpers’ benefits.

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the evidence duly adopted by the lower court and the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the evaluation of the amount of profit in the crime of breach of trust against the logical and empirical rules, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

All appeals filed by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed due to the lack of reason. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Jo Hee-de

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Min You-sook