beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal on the remainder of the Defendants other than Defendant N, R, X, and AI, a state public or private school teacher as provided in Articles 53 and 22(1) of the former Political Parties Act (amended by Act No. 10866, Jul. 21, 2011; hereinafter “ Political Parties Act”) and a crime in which a state public or private school teacher becomes a party member and a state public official as provided in 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”) join a political party or any other political organization is an immediate crime established by a state public official or a teacher of a private school, etc., and simultaneously with the establishment of the statute of limitations run.
The lower court determined that the charge of violating the Political Parties Act due to the said Defendants’ becoming a member of a State public official or a private school teacher of the said Defendants among the facts charged in the instant case, and the charge of violating the State Public Officials Act due to the said Defendants’ joining the State public official or a private school teacher of the said Defendants as a party member or sponsoring party was filed on July 22, 201, which was after the statute of limitations for three years has expired from the time of the said Defendants’ joining the said Defendants. Therefore, each of the facts charged against the said
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles as to the starting point of the continuous crime
2. As to Defendant N, R, X, and AI’s grounds of appeal (hereinafter in this paragraph “Defendants”).
A. Where there is no concern that the exercise of the defendant's right to defense by the first ground for appeal would be seriously disadvantaged, the court is different from the charges without going through the amendment procedures of indictment to the same extent.