2016Do17822 Matters concerning obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means, designation and management of development restriction zones.

Violation of the Act on Special Measures, Bribery

A

Defendant

Law Firm (LLC) F

Attorney G, H

Seoul High Court Decision 2016No1181 Decided October 14, 2016

January 12, 2017

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, concerning the designation and management of development restriction zones among the facts charged in the instant case

It is just that the court found the defendant guilty of violation of special measures and there is a ground for appeal.

As alleged, it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

There is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to public offering, joint principal offender, and specification of facts charged.

2. According to Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, facts constituting an offense and evidence in the grounds for a judgment of conviction

The summary of the judgment and the application of the law shall be specified, and the reasons for the judgment of conviction shall be specified.

Where any of the items is omitted, the judgment prescribed in Article 383 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be affected.

As a matter of law, it constitutes the ground for reversal (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505).

Court Decision 2010Do9151 decided Oct. 14, 2010

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below partially accepted the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

The first instance judgment is reversed, and the judgment of conviction is pronounced on part of the facts charged in the instant case.

As such, the judgment of the court below is based on the omission of the whole summary of evidence in its reasoning of judgment.

The guilty part shall not be exempted from destruction due to its illegality, and the designation and management of a development restriction zone among the guilty parts shall be restricted from destruction.

It shall be pronounced not guilty in the disposition because the violation of the Act on Special Measures and the commercial concurrence with the other party.

Since the portion of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means should also be reversed, the judgment of the court below is in its entirety.

shall be subject to such provisions.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

We conclude that it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jae-sik et al.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Chief Justice Park Sang-ok