All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground of appeal, the lower court determined that the instant M Headquarters constituted “an institution, organization, or facility similar to an election campaign office, liaison office, and election countermeasure organization,” which restricts the establishment, etc. under Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the aforementioned judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to “a similar institution” under Article 89(1)

2. As to the second ground of appeal, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that “the Defendants’ election-related activities and M Headquarters’s duties are clearly distinguished and the Defendants personally attempted to commit a candidate,” on the ground that the Defendants’ collusion constitutes a similar organization that restricts establishment, etc. under Article 89(1) of the Public Service Election Act, and that it constitutes a candidate for the 20th National Assembly election district, a candidate for the 20th National Assembly National Assembly National Assembly member, and thus, the facts charged in the instant case are acknowledged.” Thus, the lower court did not err by omitting judgment as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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