1. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant on the violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development due to Illegal Alteration of Form and Quality (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones”) among the facts charged in the instant case

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, 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 relevant legal doctrine

2. On the grounds of appeal by the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Development Restriction Zones due to nonperformance of corrective orders among the facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a violation of

In addition, the argument that there are grounds for exclusion from liability in the part of the facts charged in the instant case from the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the part of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (excluding the dismissal of prosecution) is not legitimate grounds for appeal since the Defendant’s ground for appeal or the lower court’s decision was not subject to ex

Furthermore, even if examining, the lower court did not err by its judgment.

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