In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below which held that among the facts charged against the defendants in this case, the defendants constituted the above organization as a second class leader of Cmpha, which is a violent crime organization at the end of 1986, constitutes a case without proof. There is no error of misconception of facts or promotion of judicial precedents due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

(2) We examine the Defendants and their defense counsel’s grounds of appeal.

Examining the trial evidence of the court below and the adopted evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below in comparison with the records, each criminal facts in its judgment against the defendants can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts due to the incomplete deliberation, such as logic, experience, and evidence-related rules, nor there is any error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to admissibility of evidence when adopting as evidence the entry of the verification protocol and the entry of the protocol of examination of evidence or statement of organization violence in the judgment of the court below, or other statement of evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance as evidence. As long as criminal facts against defendant D were established, it cannot be said that the court below excluded the judgment of misunderstanding of facts as to this point, and it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and applying Articles 77 subparagraph 5 and 31 of the Food Sanitation Act to punish the above defendant as a business operator, as it constitutes a double indictment, and thus violating Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be accepted.

In addition, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the modification of an indictment, such as the theory of the action taken by the court below applying Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 4294 of Dec. 31, 190), on the ground that the identity of the facts charged is recognized in the case prosecuted for violation of Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the same Act.

However, the first instance court decided not to adopt the protocol of statement as to E prepared by the public prosecutor and the protocol of interrogation as to F as evidence because it has no admissibility of evidence, and used it as evidence, and the court below also admitted it as evidence, but the records show that the criminal facts of the defendants are sufficiently recognized while excluding the above protocol of statement, etc., so it cannot be viewed that these errors in the judgment have influenced the conclusion of the judgment. In addition, according to the records, in the case of preservation of evidence as requested by the defense counsel of the defendant A, in accordance with Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it can be known that the protocol of examination of the witness to E, which was made after the notice of the date of examination to the parties concerned, was written without a prior notice or based on the premise that it is based on Article 221-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. All arguments are without merit.

(3) Therefore, the prosecutor and the Defendants’ appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.