The Prosecutor’s appeals against Defendant B, D, A, F, G, J, and M and Defendant AI’s appeals are all dismissed.

Defendant

C.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. The lower court, based on its reasoning, acquitted Defendant D on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding Defendant D’s violation of the Public Official Election Act due to Defendant D’s non-prosecution among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the recognition of admissibility of protocol containing a

B. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant B, F, G, J, and M on the ground that there was no proof of each of the charges of this case against Defendant B, F, G, J, and M (excluding the part on which the first instance court found Defendant B, F, and J guilty) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of logical and empirical rules and free evaluation of evidence.

C. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the charge that Defendant A conspired with Defendant D among the instant facts charged against Defendant A.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant AI’s ground of appeal.