The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the public offering principal offender

2. According to Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where the judgment of conviction clearly states the facts constituting a crime, the summary of evidence, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes in the case of conviction, and in a case where any one of the judgments was omitted in full due to conviction, it constitutes a violation of law that affected the judgment under Article 383 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act and constitutes grounds for reversal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009; 2010Do9151, Oct. 14, 2010). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below partially accepted the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, and reversed the judgment of first instance, and the judgment upon conviction on a part of the facts charged in this case, which omitted in whole the summary of evidence, the part of the judgment of conviction among the judgment below cannot be exempt from reversal by unlawful, and the part of the judgment below which did not interfere with the entire order of fraudulent judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.