All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, a public official or a teacher of a private school, as prescribed in the proviso of Articles 53 and 22(1) of the former Political Parties Act (amended by Act No. 10866, Jul. 21, 201; hereinafter “ Political Parties Act”) is a party member, and a crime committed by a public official or a teacher of a private school, as prescribed in Articles 84, 65(1) of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 10148, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “State Public Officials Act”), Articles 82 and 57(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 10147, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “Local Public Officials Act”) is a party member or a teacher of a private school, etc., or becomes a party member and becomes an immediate crime completed at the same time.

The lower court determined that each of the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a case where the statute of limitations has expired, on the grounds that the prosecution on the violation of the Political Parties Act and the violation of the State Public Officials Act or the violation of the Local Public Officials Act due to the public official's joining as a party member or sponsoring party member or a private school member among the facts charged in the instant case was instituted after the three-year statute of limitations expired from the time when the relevant Defendants become a party

In light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the starting point of the statute of limitations.

2. (1) If the Defendants’ grounds of appeal are not likely to seriously disadvantage the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense, the court recognized the facts differently within the same extent as the facts charged are identical without going through amendments to indictment.