All appeals are dismissed.

1. Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

A public official under Articles 53 and 22(1) of the former Political Parties Act (amended by Act No. 10866, Jul. 21, 2011; hereinafter “ Political Parties Act”) or a teacher of a private school under Articles 53 and 22(1) of the same Act who becomes a member of a political party, a crime in which a public official under Articles 84 and 65(1) of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 10148, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “State Public Officials Act”) joins a political party or other political organization, and a crime in which a public official under Articles 82 and 57(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 10147, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “Local Public Officials Act”) joins a political party or a teacher of a private school becomes a member of a political party and becomes effective at the same time when the crime is established.

The lower court determined that among the instant charges against the Defendants other than Defendant A and C, the charge of violating the Political Parties Act due to the membership of a political party by a State public official or local public official, the charge of violating the State Public Officials Act due to the membership of a political party by a State public official, and the charge of violating the Local Public Officials Act due to the membership of a political party by a local public official, was instituted on July 21, 201, which was three years after the expiration of the statute of limitations for each of the above Defendants, and thus, the statute of limitations for each of the charges against

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles on the starting point of prescription.

2. The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined. A.

The ground of appeal No. 1 causes substantial disadvantage to the defendant's right of defense.