beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Criminal facts against the defendant's appeal shall be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.
(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime in the judgment of the court below that the defendant acquired 50 million won from the victim in collusion with E and F.
The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such fact-finding by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which actually belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. While examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine
In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of
2. As to the prosecutor’s final appeal, in a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for the judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.