All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by public prosecutor, a State public official or a local public official under Articles 53 and 22(1) of the former Political Parties Act (Amended by Act No. 10866, Jul. 21, 201) becomes a member of a political party and a state public official under Articles 84 and 65(1) of the former State Public Officials Act (Amended by Act No. 10148, Mar. 22, 2010) or a local public official under Articles 82 and 57(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act (Amended by Act No. 10147, Mar. 22, 2010) is a crime that a State public official or local public official becomes a member of a political party and becomes a member of a political party, and the statute of limitations expires simultaneously with the establishment of the relevant crime.

The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the statute of limitations for prosecution for each three years has expired since a State public official or local public official, among the facts charged against the Defendants other than Defendant F and G, committed a violation of the Political Parties Act due to the becoming a member of the P Party, and a prosecution on the violation of the State Public Officials Act or the violation of the Local Public Officials Act due to the joining of a State public official or local public official as a member of the P Party was instituted on July 21, 201, when the three-year statute of limitations has expired since the joining of the facts charged against the said Defendants.

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 in the misapprehension of legal principles as to continuing crimes or starting point of

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. In a case where the first ground for appeal does not pose a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, the court shall have jurisdiction over the same facts charged.