[Defendant D and G] All appeals filed by Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

[Defendant A, B, C, E, and F]

1. Of the judgment of the court below,

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendants were prosecuted only for some crimes of violation of the Political Funds Act, violation of the Political Parties Act, and violation of the State Public Officials Act. However, there is no corresponding reason for appeal in relation to the crime for which no prosecution was instituted strictly. Therefore, there is a need to specify the relevant Defendants by reason of appeal, but it is indicated as Defendants without distinction for convenience.

As to the facts charged regarding the violation of the Political Funds Act that Defendants paid party membership fees as members of the I political party, there is no room to establish a violation of the Political Funds Act separately from the crime of violating the Political Funds Act, since the Defendants’ act of paying party membership fees in the position of party members constitutes “the method of contributing political funds provided for in the Political Funds Act,” this part of the facts charged constitutes “the case where the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute a crime even if they are true,” and thus, the dismissal of prosecution should be decided in accordance with Article 328(

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope that the court can judge without any modification of a bill of indictment, which found the facts charged that "the defendant paid the party membership fee as a party member" as criminal facts that "the defendant paid the support fund ex officio."

According to the facts charged in this case, the Defendants committed a violation of the State Public Officials Act due to the payment of party membership fees and a violation of the Political Funds Act in the form of commission. However, although the transfer of the party membership fees was made by transmitting the file to the Financial Settlement Service without the involvement of the Defendants, and it was revealed that there was no Defendant’s commission, it was unlawful for the lower court to have found the Defendants guilty of the above crime of omission without any changes in the indictment.

§ 45.