All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by Defendants A, B, and E).

1. As to the violation of the prohibition against contribution act by holding Q Q

A. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, the lower court found Defendant C as the representative of the L Federation (hereinafter “L Federation”) held in this case as indicated in its holding, and found Defendant C guilty of this part of the facts charged by providing C with a contribution of an admission fee corresponding to property benefits that could not be perceived to the market price to residents of CHCI for the above election of the 19th National Assembly member. The lower court found as follows: (a) Defendant C, as the representative of the L Federation (hereinafter “L Federation”), stated in its reasoning, “I draw up to this son,” and “I draw up to this son,” and “I draw up to this son. I do not have any mind.”

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in recognizing the intent to commit a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

B. As to the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the lower court is an executive officer or employee of a legal entity related to the person wishing to become a candidate by holding a free music meeting as above in collusion with Defendant A and Defendant B, the chief executive officer of the Incorporated Foundation E (hereinafter “E”).