B. Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

C. Violation of the Political Funds Act

(d) Acquisition of third-party brain;

A

D.

B

3.(b)(c)

A person shall be appointed.

4.(b)(c)

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney GY, GZ, HA, HB

Attorney HN and HO (Defendant A and B)

Law Firm Q (Defendant D and E)

Attorney S, R

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court, based on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined as follows: (a) of the instant facts charged against Defendant A and D.

4. 10. Voluntary rental fees, and on April 15, 2014;

The reason why the violation of the Political Funds Act by withdrawal constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime;

The judgment of the first instance, which acquitted the Defendant, was affirmed as it is.

In light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment in violation of the rules of evidence.

2. As to Defendant A and B’s grounds of appeal

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the instant facts charged against Defendant A and B (Defendants)

The lower judgment that found Defendant guilty of all of the grounds for appeal against Defendant A is alleged in the grounds for appeal.

(1) the misunderstanding of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, or the relation of duties, inclusive, and pressure in the crime of bribery;

The illegality and admissibility of search and seizure, the legal principles on the person in charge of accounting under the Political Funds Act, or the judgment

Provided, That there was no error by omission.

3. As to Defendant D’s ground of appeal

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the facts charged in this case against Defendant D (whether there is any objection thereto)

The judgment of the court below which found all of the charges guilty shall be reversed, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the contrary, the legality and illegality of search and seizure of electronic information, and the Political Funds Act

There is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the concept of the accountant in charge.

4. As to Defendant E’s ground of appeal

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, Defendant E guilty of the instant facts charged

The judgment of the court below which judged that it violated the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal:

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the forfeiture of status of a person in charge of accounting under the Political Funds Act.

(2).

5. Conclusion

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

this decision is delivered.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Shin-hoon, Justice Kim Shin

Justices Park Sang-ok