All appeals are dismissed.

Of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance, "Article 14 Section 1" in the 12th and 13 and 14 of the 3rd and the 14th.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating the prohibition of re-subcontract under the Electric Construction Business Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B is a contractor rather than a contractor with respect to each of the instant electrical construction, and F is guilty of violating the prohibition of re-subcontract even though it is not a subcontractor but a subcontractor, the lower court’s judgment that found Defendant B guilty of violating the prohibition of re-subcontract is erroneous, or the lower court’s failure to conduct a trial on its own, is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

B. While examining the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendants.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. Since it is evident that there is an error in the judgment of the court of first instance as ordered, it is corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.