All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed). The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, B, and C in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance and the court below, the court below is just in finding Defendant A and similar institutions in the facts charged in this case guilty of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to Defendant C’s telephone advance election campaign (excluding the part on the grounds of innocence), Defendant A and C’s first-person demonstration, attendance campaign, and violation of the Public Official Election Act due to advance election campaign in the form of street propaganda, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to prohibition of establishment of a similar institution in violation of logical and empirical rules, prohibition of establishment of a similar institution under Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act, election campaign under Article 254(2) of the Public Official Election Act, requirements for establishment of a joint principal offender, recognition of illegality, etc., and omission of judgment.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains errors in the grounds for the determination of sentencing is ultimately unfair.

Accordingly, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a fine is imposed against Defendant A.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant J’s grounds for appeal in light of the first instance court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that Defendant J is guilty of all of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.