All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the lower court convicted the Defendants of the violation of the Farmland Act regarding the Defendants’ occupational breach of trust, the part on the Defendants’ occupational breach of trust and the part on the violation of the Farmland Act regarding X 2,688m2

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations in its judgment, and 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 self-help, criminal subject, etc. in violation of Articles 59 subparag. 1, 8(1), and 6(1) of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 12812, Oct. 15, 2014; hereinafter “former Farmland Act”) and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby violating the presumption of innocence or omitting necessary judgments.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal by the defendants are different from this case, and thus it is inappropriate to invoke this case.

2. On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that there was no proof of a crime regarding the Defendants’ violation of the Farmland Act with respect to the portion of 2,241 square meters prior to C in the instant charges, and Defendant B’s violation of the Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and 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, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of violating Articles 59 subparag. 1, 8(1), and 6 of the former Farmland Act with respect to farmland and a crime of violating Articles 8 subparag. 2, and 6

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