1. The lower court found Defendant A guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”) which is the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules without exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the meaning and judgment criteria of intimidation, which is the means of the crime of public conflict, and the timing of the crime of public conflict, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the constitutional interpretation and supplement of the law, and the prohibition of analogical interpretation.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, we affirm the lower court’s finding the Defendant not guilty of all the aiding and abetting the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (No. 5) which is the primary charge against Defendant B, and the ancillary charge added by the lower court.

In so doing, contrary to the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for establishing joint principal offenders and aiding and abetting, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

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