All appeals are dismissed.

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

The allegation in the grounds of appeal as to the unspecified argument in the facts charged is that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, although the part of the facts charged in this case constitutes the defendant's career and constitutes the defendant's act, and simply published false facts as to "career and act" without distinguishing what part of the facts charged in this case from that of the defendant.

However, the purpose of the Criminal Procedure Act, which stipulates the time, place, and method of a crime, is to enable a defendant to exercise his/her right of defense by distinguishing facts charged from other facts.

As long as the act satisfying the requirements for establishment of the facts charged in the instant case is specifically specified in the method of clearly expressing the date and method, it shall not be deemed to hinder the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by stating it as “career and behavior” without distinguishing it from “career” and “act”. Thus, the facts charged in the instant case shall be deemed to have been specified.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of the facts charged.

B. As to the “career” and “act” under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act, the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though the Defendant did not fall under the Defendant’s “career” or “act,” and the lower court determined otherwise, even though it did not fall under the Defendant’s “career” or “act,” that the Defendant was holding both a museum, art gallery, and astronomical book at H market while he was working in the H market from July 1, 201 to June 30, 2014.

Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act.