1. As to ground of appeal No. 1, the court did not determine the matters alleged by the parties.

Even if the claim is clearly rejected, it cannot be said that there is no error of omission of judgment due to the lack of influence on the result of the judgment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da218, Jul. 10, 2008; 201Da87174, Apr. 26, 2012). According to the records, the Defendant asserted in the statement of grounds for appeal that there was no perception of illegality by the Defendant, along with the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles and mistake of facts, in the statement of grounds for appeal, and that the Defendant did not clearly withdraw the assertion on the date of trial of the lower court.

However, examining the evidence legitimately adopted by the first instance court in light of the relevant legal principles, since it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason for the defendant to have committed a mistake that his act was not illegal, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the omission of judgment as above.

2. Examining the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending

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