Do 2013 820 A. Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (Composition and Activities of Organizations, etc.)

(b) Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (Inflictingment of Group, Deadly Weapons, etc.);

(c) Injury;

D. Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc.

(e) Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)

(f) Violation of the Act on Punishment for Violence, Etc. (joint coercion);

(g) Fraud;

H. Violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment Act

(i) Interference with business;

(j) Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (Joint Bodily Injury);

(k) Violation of the Military Service Act

1. (a) b. (c) d. A;

2. (a) e.g. (f) h. B;

(j) (k) C:

4. A. H.D.

5. (a) (h); (j) E;

6. (a) (h);

Defendant 1

Attorney G.

Busan High Court Decision 2012No 553 decided December 26, 2012

April 11, 2013

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. In light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court that maintained the reasoning of the original judgment as to Defendant C’s grounds for appeal as to Defendant C’s violation of the Military Service Act, it is justifiable to acknowledge Defendant C as guilty of this part of the public prosecution for the same reason as the judgment of the lower court, and there is no illegality, such as in violation of the logic and experience legal rules, thereby deviating from the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant C and the grounds of appeal by the remaining Defendants except Defendant C

In a case where Defendant 1 filed an appeal against the judgment of first instance solely on the ground that the sentencing was unfair, the appellate court’s judgment cannot be deemed as the ground of appeal, such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1719, Apr. 13, 2006). In addition, even if Defendant 1 lodged an appeal against the judgment of first instance on the ground that it was unfair in sentencing and other grounds of appeal along with the sentencing unfair, Defendant 1’s subsequent appeal cannot be deemed as the ground of appeal on the ground that it was unlawful, such as misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of first instance, in a case where Defendant 1 withdraws the grounds of appeal prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3244, Sept. 9, 205).

According to the record, Defendant C appealed on the judgment of the first instance, and Defendant C’s appeal on the charge of violation of the Military Service Act, and Defendant C’s remaining Defendants except Defendant C asserted on the grounds of each appeal only for the wrongful sentencing. On the first trial date of the lower court, Defendant C’s withdrawal of all grounds for appeal other than mistake of the facts as to Defendant C’s unfair sentencing and the fact that Defendant C’s violation of the Military Service Act on the part of the remainder of conviction except for the part of Defendant C’s violation of the Military Service Act from among the original judgment of the lower court cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case of death penalty, life imprisonment, imprisonment with prison labor for more than ten years, or imprisonment with prison labor for more than ten years, a final appeal for the reason of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the Defendant’s judgment of punishment was unfair in the instant case, which was sentenced to a more minor punishment, cannot be a legitimate ground for final appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim So-young