The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant facts charged was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the “person who does not deliver land or goods” under Article 95-2 subparag. 2 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, or by violating the principle of statutory penalty

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