All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged against Defendant A.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of facts charged, violation of restrictions on contribution acts, and establishment of each offense of violating the Public Official Election Act due to prior election campaigns,

2. Defendant B affirmed the judgment of the first instance court that convicted Defendant B of the facts charged (excluding the acquittal part) as to Defendant B.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of each offense of violating the Public Official Election Act by means of prior election campaigns, and

3. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting Defendant C, D, E, F, and H of each charge against Defendant C, D, E, F, and H.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to

4. The lower court convicted Defendant I of the charges against Defendant I.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by aiding and abetting the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of