All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Although examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the specific facts charged, the principle of clarity of the principle of no punishment without the law, Articles 106, 113, and 262-2(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 7(1) of the Protection of Specific Crime Informants, etc. Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the public prosecutor on the ground that there was no proof of the crime regarding the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to door-to-door visits to N, W, and U among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Although examining the reasoning in light of the record, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending facts against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 106 of the Public Official Election Act.

On the other hand, although the prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below, the prosecutor did not state specific grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.