1. Examining the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor as to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal on (i) the contribution act, based on the records, it is justifiable for the lower court to have maintained the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants on the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to the Defendants’ contribution act (hereinafter “Education Autonomy Act”) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on the restriction on contribution under Article 114(1) of the Public Official Election Act.

The ground of appeal on this part of the ground of appeal on the point of Dob advance election campaign is not a legitimate ground of appeal, since the court below's explanation on the violation of the Education Autonomy Act due to prior election campaign, which the court below found guilty, is a part of the reasoning of the judgment below, which affected the judgment below.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and Defendant C, in light of the due process and the spirit of warrant requirement to be realized under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, a judge’s text and language to specify “goods to be seized” in issuing a search and seizure warrant shall be strictly interpreted, and an extension or analogical interpretation of the contents to be disadvantageous to the persons subject to search and seizure shall not be permitted without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do763, Mar. 12, 2009). However, the subject of search and seizure shall not be limited to those directly related to the criminal facts themselves of the search and seizure warrant, and the seizure may be conducted to the extent that there are considerable grounds to suspect that the criminal facts of the search and seizure warrant and the basic facts are identical or similar to the criminal facts of the same crime.

Supreme Court Decision 209.7. 23.