[Defendant A, C, D, H, M,O, P, Q] Defendants and the Prosecutor’s Appeal are all dismissed.

Defendant

E, F, G, I, J, K.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendants were prosecuted only for some of the offenses against the Political Funds Act, the violation of the Political Parties Act, the violation of the Local Public Officials Act, and the violation of the State Public Officials Act. However, there is no corresponding reason for appeal concerning the offenses against which no prosecution has been instituted strictly. Therefore, the Defendants need to specify the relevant Defendants by reason of appeal, but are 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 W Party, the Defendants’ act of paying party membership fees in the position of party members constitutes “Methods of contributing political funds provided for in the Political Funds Act” and thus, there is no room to establish a violation of the Political Funds Act separate from the offense of violating the Political Funds Act. As such, this part of the facts charged constitutes “when the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute a crime even if they are true,” and thus, the dismissal of prosecution ought to be decided pursuant to 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, the Cmscirce transfer of party membership fees was made by transmitting W Party EB21 files to the Financial Settlement Board without the involvement of the Defendants, and it was found that there was no Defendant’s commission. Therefore, the lower court’s conviction of the Defendants as a crime of omission without any changes in the indictment is unlawful.