The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged in the instant case was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Article 24(3)2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, the subject of the crime under Article 85 subparag. 5, and the likelihood of an emergency escape and lawful act, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of

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