beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that all facts charged against the Defendant were recognized on the grounds of its stated reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on unconstitutionality of Article 7(5) of the National Security Act, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by omitting judgment.
In addition, even in light of the record, the lower court’s error in the proceeding of the trial does not seem to have any error affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
Other grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal under each subparagraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor in light of the record, the lower court is justifiable to have acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of criminal facts as to the Defendants’ violation of the National Security Act (e.g., production and distribution of pro-enemy materials as of February 22, 2012, Sept. 19, 2012, and Oct. 15, 2012) by acquiring and possessing five pro-enemy materials, among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime
On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed the remainder of the judgment of the court below, but there is no statement in the petition of appeal or appellate brief on the grounds of objection.
3. Therefore, the conclusion is reasonable.