1. For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendants guilty on the grounds that there was no proof of a crime as to the part of the attached Table 1 5, 8, 11, and 14 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court and attached Table 2 4, 4, 7, and 8 among the charges against the Defendants, among the charges against the Defendants, 3 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, and attached Table 4 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9, 5, 7, and 9, 5, 5, and 6 1 through 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 16 of the crime sight table as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, among the charges against the Defendants.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Articles 24(1), 40(1), 55 subparag. 5, 57 subparag. 2, and 58 of the former Mental Health Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1310, Jan. 28, 2015) and the former Mental Health Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14224, May 29, 2016; hereinafter collectively referred to as “former Mental Health Act”) and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and B, the lower court convicted Defendant A and B of the facts charged (excluding the part of not guilty and dismissal of prosecution) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on interpretation of Articles 24(1), 40(1), 55 subparag. 5, and 57 subparag. 2 of the former Mental Health Act, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on statutory mistake, legitimate act, and the principle of prohibition of analogical interpretation.