Do 2018 Do 11514 A. Murder

(b) Forging a private document;

(c) Exercising forged private documents;

(d) False description, such as official electronic records;

(e) Events, such as electronic records of false entries;

(f) Fraud;

(g) Attempted fraud;

1. A;

2. B

Defendant 1

Law Firm CX (for Defendant A)

Attorney in charge, CY, CZ

Attorney DA (National Assembly for Defendant B)

Seoul High Court Decision 2017No 2765 decided July 6, 2018

November 29, 2018

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal (the grounds of appeal are within the scope of supplement for the grounds of appeal, such as the written appeal submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the written grounds of appeal).

For the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant B guilty of all the facts charged (in relation to murder, preliminary prosecuted facts). Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted, the judgment of the court below is justifiable. The judgment of the court below is just. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the existence of facts charged, the degree of proof required in criminal trial, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether the facts charged are specific, and the degree of proof required in criminal trial, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the judgment due to the violation of statutes, the deliberation, lack of reasoning, inconsistency with the reasoning, the lack of reasoning, and the violation of the principle of prohibition of analogical interpretation of the principle of statutory punishment, etc.

In addition, examining various circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., there is no substantial reason to recognize that the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of appeal is too unfair because it is too too unreasonable due to the Defendant’s appearance of the lower court’s punishment as to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the grounds for appeal should be cited in the records of lawsuit and the facts expressed in the examination of evidence by the court of the original instance, and the reasons for the appeal should be specified. Thus, the grounds for appeal that Defendant A submitted to the counsel of the court of the first instance and the court of the original instance shall be invoked as they are for the reasons for appeal, such as the arguments submitted in the first instance and the reasoning for appeal, among the grounds for appeal submitted by Defendant A.

The part of the appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Do2716, Feb. 13, 1996; 2002Do606, Mar. 11, 2004, etc.).

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Jung-hwa-hwa

Justices Kim Jong-soo