Defendant

With respect to the acquittal portion of the remaining Defendants except A, I, S,P, andCC, a public official or a teacher of a private school as provided in Articles 53 and 22(1) of the former Political Parties Act (amended by Act No. 10866, Jul. 21, 2011; hereinafter “ Political Parties Act”) shall become a party member and a public official as provided in Articles 84 and 65(1) of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 10148, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “State Public Officials Act”) shall immediately be established by joining a political party or any other political organization by a public official or a teacher of a private school, etc., and at the same time the statute of limitations shall run simultaneously with the establishment of such crime.

The lower court determined that the statute of limitations for each of the facts charged against the above Defendants was expired, on July 21, 201, since the public prosecution on the violation of the Political Parties Act and the part concerning the violation of the State Public Officials Act due to a State public official or a private school teacher of a political party became a party member among the facts charged in the instant case against the above Defendants was instituted on July 21, 201, which was the three-year statute of limitations for prosecution as stated in the facts charged against

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles on the starting point of prescription.

B. As to DefendantCC’s portion, the lower court: (a) deemed that there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that DefendantCC continued to pay support payments with the intent to support CMFs, since it was apparent that it withdrawn it on January 20, 2006.