beta
Cases
2013Do16029 Fraudulent
Defendant
1. A;
2. B
Appellant
Defendants
Defense Counsel
U.S. Law Firm (for Defendant A, Attorneys V, and W
Law Firm J (LLC) X (For the Defendants)
Y, Z, AA
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Do3456 Decided December 6, 2013
Imposition of Judgment
December 10, 2015
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal
Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine
2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, 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
Meanwhile, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error in sentencing constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing. However, under Article 383 subparag. 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 is imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the determination of the sentence is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jae-young
Justices Park Sang-ok.
Justices Lee Sang-hoon
Justices Kim Chang-suk
Justices Cho Jong-hee