All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of accepting bribe among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning is just and acceptable.

In light of various circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal, such as that L was involved in the process before and after the transfer of the money, and the final debtor liable to bear the election consulting costs, E, etc., it is deemed that there is no reasonable doubt in finding the defendant guilty in light of the circumstances that can be known by the evidence in the record, such as the process of receiving the money, the role of J and the status of the defendant, etc.

Unlike the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, the Public Official Election Act only lists election expenses, and stipulates that “expenses incurred in preparation for election campaign” does not constitute election expenses.

In light of this, it is necessary to prove strictly that the relevant expenses constitute election expenses under the Public Official Election Act in judging the violation of the Political Funds Act related to the accounting and reporting of election expenses.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the above legal principles and the record, it is justifiable for the court below to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the violation of the Public Official Election Act among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds that there is no proof of

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the principle of free evaluation of evidence exceeds the bounds of logical and empirical rules.