1. Examining the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and E in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating Article 85 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal in its reasoning.

2. Examining the reasoning of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of Article 85 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments and the joint principal offender, as alleged in the grounds of appeal in the lower judgment, which found the Defendant guilty of the modified facts charged (excluding the part on

3. Review of the record on the grounds of appeal by Defendant D, F, and G reveals that the Defendants appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the new argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 85 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

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