The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, 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 “an expression of intent to provide property benefits” in the crime of inducing purchase and understanding as stipulated in Article 4 of the Communications Protection Act, the rules of exclusion of illegally collected evidence, and Article 230(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act, or “an election campaign using a status of a public official” as stipulated in Article 85(2) of the Public Official Election Act, without exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

Article 230 (1) 2 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 85 (2) of the Public Official Election Act does not violate the principle of clarity and the principle of excessive prohibition, and Article 255 (3) 2 of the Public Official Election Act does not violate the principle of proportionality and punishment.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation of the grounds of appeal that each of the above statutory provisions is unconstitutional.

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