The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only within the extent of filing an objection based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the petition of final appeal or the grounds of final appeal must clarify the grounds of final appeal and explain specific and explicit reasons as to what points of the judgment below is in violation of the statutes. Thus, in the petition of final appeal or the grounds of final appeal submitted by the appellant, where the grounds of final appeal merely stated that there exists a violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles without any specific and explicit reasons, it shall not be deemed that the legitimate grounds of final appeal have been submitted, on the ground that the mere reasons for final appeal are not alleged to be against the rules of evidence, as to what kind of evidence measures were against the rules of evidence, or as to what kind of error in the application of any statute has been erroneous and unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do887, May 24, 1983; 9Do5

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s defense counsel filed an appeal on behalf of the above Defendants only stated the grounds of appeal as “legal scenarios or mistake of facts,” and did not submit the appellate brief within the submission period. As such, it cannot be deemed that the above Defendants submitted legitimate grounds of appeal on the ground of stating “legal scenarios or mistake of facts,” and thus, the appeal by the above Defendants cannot be accepted.

2. Judgment on Defendant 4’s appeal

Defendant 4’s defense counsel filed an appeal on behalf of the above Defendant only stated the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal on the grounds of fact, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1125 pages), and thereafter, the court below dismissed the above Defendant’s appeal by deeming that only the above Defendant was the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing to the lower court’s grounds for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2219, Dec. 12, 2003). Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the court below’s decision that the above Defendant merely considered the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2219, Dec. 12, 2003).

In addition, although the defendant's defense counsel of the above defendant asserts a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles against the judgment of the court below as the ground of appeal, in case where the defendant appealed the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground of unfair sentencing only as the ground of appeal and the appeal was dismissed, it cannot be viewed as the ground of appeal that there was an error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles against the judgment of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do3256, Feb. 9, 1993; 2002Do7115, Feb. 11, 200

3. Determination on the remaining Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. As to the establishment of private organizations and related advance election campaigns

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the defendant was a private organization established on behalf of the non-indicted 1 who wants to be a candidate in the election, and that the defendant was an advance election campaign for the non-indicted 1 through the event of the mountain conference. In light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal. The ground for appeal on this point is not acceptable.

B. As to the provision of an event interest to the electorate

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that Defendant 1's act of offering money and goods to the subordinate training competitions of the mountain conference constitutes an act of offering money and goods to the electorate's events for the purpose of using them for election campaign. In light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding and decision are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

C. Violation of the prior election campaign and restriction on contribution

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the act of Defendant 1 delivered money to Nonindicted 2 on Aug. 1, 2003, and the act of Defendant 5 delivered money to Nonindicted 3 on Oct. 11, 2003 under Defendant 1's order on Oct. 11, 2003 constitutes an advance election campaign, and the act of Defendant 6 delivered money to Nonindicted 4 on Nov. 18, 2003, and the act of Defendant 7 delivered money to Nonindicted 4 on March 17, 2004 constitutes an act in violation of the regulations on the restriction on contribution. In light of the court below and the records, the court below's above fact-finding and judgment are just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

D. On the provision and receipt of money in connection with an election campaign

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that each of the money received by Defendant 1, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Defendant 7 constitutes an act of providing or receiving money in connection with an election campaign, not an allowance to policy assistants or an election campaign worker, by taking into account the facts of the judgment.

An election campaign refers to any act that is advantageous to the purpose of promoting the success or defeat in the election of a specific candidate, and that is objectively recognized as an act that is necessary or favorable for the success or defeat in the election. Thus, it is distinguishable from an act in preparation for an election campaign or ordinary political party activities for the future election campaign, but in determining whether a certain act constitutes an election campaign, it shall be determined not only as the cause of the act, but also as the form of the act, i.e., the time, place, method, etc. of the act, comprehensively observing the manner of the act, and whether it is an act accompanying the purpose of promoting the success or defeat in the election of a specific candidate (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1432, Apr. 9, 199).

Therefore, even though a person is employed under the pretext of supporting parliamentary activities of a member of the National Assembly, if a person actually establishes and operates a private organization to publicize the election of the member of the National Assembly who is to run for the purpose of promoting the election of the member, he/she shall be deemed to be an election campaign conducted for the purpose of promoting the election of the member who is a candidate. The act of receiving money in relation to such activities as remuneration is in violation of Article 230 (1) 4 and 5, and Article 135 (3) of the former Public Official Election and Prevention of Election Act (amended by Act No. 7189 of March 12, 2004), and thus the crime of receiving money and valuables related to election campaign is established. The same applies to the case where a person in charge of accounting of the relevant member of the National Assembly makes an accounting report under Article 24 (1) of the former Political Fund Act (amended by Act No. 7191 of March 12, 2004).

Examining the above legal principles in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the ground of appeal. The argument in the ground of appeal as to this point is not acceptable.

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 Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)