1. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted Defendant A of the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) among the facts charged against Defendant A, on the ground that there was no proof of a crime.

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 against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intentional act of false accusation and the perception of “false fact” as prescribed in Article 70(2)

A prosecutor appealeds the entire judgment of the court below against Defendant A, but the guilty part is not indicated in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief.

2. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of special residence intrusion part among the facts charged against Defendant A.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “influence” in the crime of special residence intrusion, “competence” and “political act

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant B of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “influence” in the crime of special residence intrusion, “competence” and “political act

The argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error in sentencing review is eventually final.