beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, a state public official or a teacher of a private school as provided in Articles 53 and 22(1) of the former Political Parties Act (amended by Act No. 10866, Jul. 21, 2011; hereinafter “ Political Parties Act”) regarding the crime in which a State public official or a teacher of a private school becomes a member of a political party, and a state public official as provided in Articles 84 and 65(1) of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 10148, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “State Public Officials Act”) joins a political party or any other political organization, and the crime in which a state public official or a teacher of a private school, etc. becomes a member of a political party
On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the statute of limitations has expired when the time of entry on the roster of party members and the time of entry into the sponsoring party members at the time of completion of membership and when the public official became the sponsoring party members, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, since both the violation of the Political Parties Act and the violation of the State Public Officials Act due to joining a political party by a public official or teacher of a private school constitutes an immediate crime.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on continuing
2. Judgment on the Defendants’ grounds of appeal
A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 4, where there is no risk of substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of the defendant's right to defense, it does not violate the principle of no accusation even if the court acknowledged facts different from the facts charged without going through amendments to indictment.
Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1651 Decided June 30, 201