All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (including the fact-finding of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles with respect to the acquittal portion, and the prosecutor’s judgment of partial conviction of facts) stated in the “Scope of Appeal” as “the fact-finding of unfair sentencing with respect to Defendant A, for whom the judgment of partial conviction of facts was rendered,” but the grounds for appeal did not state any grounds for appeal with respect to the above issue of unfair sentencing. Therefore, the aforementioned assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed to have been submitted (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do19824, Mar. 15, 2017). Therefore, even if the lower court’s conviction portion against Defendant A was transferred to the trial by the submission of the above petition of appeal, it shall be deemed that it was in fact withdrawn from the subject of the trial of the party, and thus, it shall not be separately determined as to the above assertion of unfair sentencing, and thus, the amount received between the Defendants in return for waiver of the withdrawal and horse of Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “instant money”) is prohibited under the Political Funds Act

The grounds are as follows:

At the time of the promise to provide the instant money, Defendant A was in the position of preliminary candidates for the 19th general candidates, and thus, the said Defendant constitutes “a person engaging in political activities.”

B. The waiver of the call-out is an expression of intent to elect the other candidate who was officially recruited for the supporter and an act requiring the reflect of his policy or ideology when the other candidate is elected in the future. In light of the fact that the payment for the renunciation of the call-out is made up for the election expenses of the candidate who renounced the call-out and is used as the funds for political activities, such as the future election expenses, etc., the waiver of the call-out constitutes a political activity itself.

C. Defendant A was able to engage in political activities in a different way even if he renounces the horse, and was actually engaged in political activities. Thus, the number of money in this case is Defendant A’s.