1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and Defendant B’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendants of both the violation of the Farmland Act and the violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act 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 relevant legal principles and duly admitted evidence, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err 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 diversion of farmland in the Farmland Act, the scope of permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act

2. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant A of occupational breach of trust 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 evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

3. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting Defendant B of the fact that Defendant B prepared false official documents among the facts charged in the instant case and the presentation of false official documents, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned.