1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

A. The lower court rejected the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine on each crime committed on January 10, 201, January 31, 2011; January 31, 2012; and May 11, 2012, on the grounds that the statute of limitations has expired, since each crime committed on May 11, 201 is established separately at the time of accounting report and each crime is concurrent crimes.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on determining the number of crimes, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

B. The lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance court that found that there was no proof of a crime against this part of the facts charged, and acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged, due to the violation of the Political Funds Act due to the payment of the AR monthly rent and the rental fee contribution.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, 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 receipt of political funds and contributions.

C. The lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance court that convicted Defendant A and B of this part of the facts charged, and dismissed this part of the prosecution, by recognizing that the prosecution procedure was invalid due to the violation of the provisions of the Act, on the grounds that this part of the facts charged was not specified.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the specification of the facts charged, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. Violation (1) of Political Funds Act (see Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act), the fact that the portion of the receipt of illegal political funds due to the payment of benefits to P,W, and AP is proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (see Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act).