1. On the grounds of appeal by the Defendant, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that the real estate sales contract concluded by the Defendant with the buyer, including J, constitutes a contract to re-transfer the ownership of the real estate purchased by the Defendant to a third party, and rejected the Defendant’s appeal claiming mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and upheld the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of violating

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the violation of Articles 8 and 2(3) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the charge of perjury, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is nothing more than a dispute over the judgment of the court of fact-finding on the selection and probative value of evidence.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the 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.

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