All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant A of the receipt and disbursement of political funds that did not go through the reported deposit account among the facts charged against Defendant A, omission of accounting report, and receipt and payment of political funds from members of the AG supporters’ association on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the principle of trial of evidence and the joint principal offender of the public offering, or by misapprehending the principle

In addition, the argument that the receipt and disbursement of political funds that did not go through the deposit account reported among the facts charged in the instant case, and the omission of the accounting report constitutes an act ex post facto act of receiving some political funds out of the assistant's benefits, is asserted by Defendant A as grounds for appeal or the lower court did not make it subject to ex officio determination, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant B of the facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the perception of illegality and the act of ex post facto action.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant C’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant C of the facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the perception of illegality.

4. The judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal by Defendant D.