The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendants’ act constituted not simply human resources supply but the selection of a management entity specialized in improvement projects, and thus, guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the selection of a management entity specialized in improvement projects under the Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement Act, by exceeding the bounds of free conviction due to violating logical and empirical rules.

In addition, in light of Article 33 of the Criminal Act, which provides that a person who is not a molecule may become an accomplice in a single identification crime, there is a misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal in finding Defendant B guilty of violating Article 84-3 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments.

subsection (b) of this section.

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