beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, the court of final appeal is ex post facto review of the decision of the appellate court, matters not subject to a review in the appellate court are not subject to the scope of the judgment of the court of final appeal. As such, the grounds other than those not alleged in the appellate court as grounds of appeal or subject to a review by the appellate
(2) According to the records, the court below did not assert the legal principles as to the meaning of "political funds" (ground of appeal No. 1), the misapprehension of legal principles as to "political funds revenue and expenditure not by a person in charge of accounting" (ground of appeal No. 2), the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the specification of facts charged (ground of appeal No. 3), the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the public offering and expenditure of political funds not by a person in charge of accounting (ground of appeal No. 4), and the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes concerning "expenses of political funds not by a person in charge of accounting" (ground of appeal No. 6), and the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes concerning "expenses of political funds not by a person in charge of accounting.
Therefore, each of the above grounds of appeal are clearly asserted in the grounds of appeal that they are not subject to adjudication in the appellate court, and this does not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal.
Furthermore, even if examining ex officio, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the lower court in light of the relevant legal principles as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal Nos. 5 and Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the lower court’s determination that upheld the first instance judgment that found Defendant A guilty of all the charges of this part on the ground that C, T, E, and X was credibility in the statement from the investigative agency to the court.