1. Judgment on the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted as to Defendant A’s act of aiding and abetting an offender, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of committing the crime of aiding and abetting an offender against the Defendant among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the crime of aiding and abetting an offender, contrary

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act against the Defendants in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendants guilty of violating the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act among the facts charged in the instant case 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 the legal doctrine on the control intervention under Article 81 subparag. 4

2. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants on the ground that there was no proof of the relevant crime as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.