2. BI

3. D;

Law Firm DG (for Defendant A)

Attorney DH, DI, DJ

Law Firm (Limited) DK (Defendant D)

Attorney DL, DM

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court and the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the promise to provide benefit 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 exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

In addition, the argument regarding admissibility of telephone conversations CDs and recording records among the grounds of appeal is not legitimate grounds of appeal, as they are alleged in the grounds of appeal by Defendant A as the grounds of appeal or by the lower court as the subject of ex officio determination. Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, the lower court did not err in its judgment as otherwise alleged in the grounds of

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court and the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty of violating the Public Official Election Act due to Defendant B’s act of contribution to a third party 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 exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

3. As to Defendant D’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court and the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant D guilty of the facts charged. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, 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 the criteria for determining the credibility of statements, the criteria for determining the probative value of evidence, and Article 230

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Park Sang-ok