All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, a public official under the proviso of Articles 53 and 22(1) of the former Political Parties Act (amended by Act No. 10866, Jul. 21, 201; hereinafter “ Political Parties Act”) and a crime in which a public official becomes a member of a political party or becomes a member of a political party, 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 other political organization is established immediately after a local public official becomes a member of a political party or becomes a member of a political party and becomes a member of a political party

The lower court determined that, of the instant facts charged against the remaining Defendants except the Defendants J, the prosecution against the violation of the Political Parties Act due to the local public officials becoming a party member of M, and the charge on the violation of the Local Public Officials Act due to the local public officials being admitted to M Party membership was instituted on July 21, 201, which was three years after the expiration of the statute of limitations for each of the three years following the said Defendants’ becoming a party member or joined the said Party, and that each of the facts charged against the said Defendants constitutes a case where

In light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the starting point of the statute of limitations.

2. (1) If the Defendants’ grounds of appeal are not likely to seriously disadvantage the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense, the Defendants’ grounds of appeal do not contravene the principle of no accusation, even though the court acknowledged facts different from the facts charged without going through changes in indictments, to the same extent

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1651, Jun. 30, 2011). The lower court recognized the instant facts charged and the judgment of the first instance court.