beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the assertion of omission of judgment, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that the lower court did not have any further dispute as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the receipt of money and valuables related to election campaign (the guilty part of the lower judgment) and did not have any judgment contrary to the judgment of remanding, on the ground that the lower court’s judgment found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the part of the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to excessive disbursement of election expenses (the acquittal part of the lower judgment) and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act were reversed and remanded
According to the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the judgment on the grounds of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
In addition, the Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in this case as they differ from this case.
In addition, the argument that there should be grounds for review and determination on the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the receipt of money and valuables related to election campaign at the lower court is only the first time in the final appeal after the lower judgment, and it does not constitute legitimate grounds for final appeal. In addition, this part of the argument is without merit.
2. Where the judgment of the court of final appeal is reversed by the defendant's appeal as to the allegation of violation of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change, and the case is remanded to the appellate court, the judgment of the court of final appeal shall not be sentenced more than the judgment of the appellate court reversed because the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change is applied in relation to the judgment of the court below before