All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Do16593-1 Decided March 21, 2019【Violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Purport and basis of the so-called “legal principle regarding the restriction of the grounds of final appeal” Whether the court of final appeal shall only examine the reasonableness of the matters that had been subject to adjudication of the appellate court within the scope of the grounds of final appeal (affirmative), and in a case where the grounds of final appeal include: (a) matters that were not argued by the appellant as the grounds of appeal; or (b) matters determined by the appellate court’s ex officio designation as the subject of adjudication, whether including such matters in the scope of adjudication of the court of final appeal goes against the ex post facto review structure adopted by the court of final appeal (affirmative) In a case where: (a) the defendant either did not appeal the first instance judgment by which he/she was found guilty or appealed on the sole ground of an unreasonable sentencing decision; (b) the prosecutor lodged an appeal on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing; and (c) the appellate court granted the prosecutor’s appeal, reversed the first instance judgment, and imposed a higher sentence, whether it is justifiable for the defendant to lodge a final appeal based on new grounds of final appeal, for example, violations of law, which were not subject to the appellate court’s adjudication (negative) [2] In the case where: (a) the Defendants were indicted on a charge of violating the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and were each sentenced to a fine by the first instance court; (b) the Defendants either did not lodge an appeal or appealed on the sole ground of an unreasonable sentencing decision; (c) the prosecutor also appealed the ruling on the grounds of an unreasonable sentence; (d) the appellate court accepted the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, reversed the first instance judgment, and imposed a higher sentence on each of the Defendants; and (e) the Defendants raised new grounds of final appeal that had not been subject to adjudication of the court of appeals, including (i) violation of the rules of evidence, (ii) failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and (iii) misapprehension of legal principles, the case holding that the foregoing grounds of final appeal presented by the Defendants do not constitute legitimate grounds for final appeal because they had not been subject to adjudication in the appellate trial |
|
