특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the lower court acquitted Defendant A on the ground that: (a) of the instant facts charged on September 2013, 2013, the violation of each of the Public Official Election Act due to the distribution of tin gifts to Defendant A; (b) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery); (c) the violation of each of the Public Official Election Act due to the distribution of tin gifts to Defendant B on September 2013 (excluding the part of the charge); and (d) the violation of each of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) (excluding the part of the charge); and (e) the violation of each of the Public Official Election Act (excluding the part of the charge) and the offering of bribe to Defendant Q constituted a crime without proof of the
Examining the record, the above judgment of the court below is justified.
There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the relevant legal principles.
The argument that the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the point of violation of each Public Official Election Act (excluding the part concerning the charge) against Defendant AR is alleged in the ground of appeal by the prosecutor or the court below's decision is not subject to a judgment ex officio, and it is not a legitimate ground of appeal.
Although examining records, there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the judgment of the court below.
2. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the allegation that there was an error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as to each violation of the Public Official Election Act due to a contribution act on October 26, 2013 and on the 29th of the same month in the lower judgment is not the ground for appeal by Defendant A or the lower court is not subject to judgment ex officio.