All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the violation of the Political Funds Act due to the illegal receipt of political funds, the political funds prohibited by the Political Funds Act refer to all the money, etc. provided to persons engaged in political activities for political activities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17497, Apr. 23, 2015). “Free loan” under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Political Funds Act refers to lending without the contribution of the money, etc., and therefore, whether money, valuables, etc. are free of charge or not should be determined by whether there is a obligation to contribute money, etc. as at the time of lending.

Therefore, if a person who borrows money and valuables, etc. only has an unilateral intent to contribute a price without any counter-school agreement as to the contribution of the price, it shall not be deemed that the obligation to contribute a price arises, and thus, it shall be deemed that the lending of money and valuables, etc. prescribed by the Political Fund Act, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12152, Dec. 27, 2012, etc.). The lower court acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and found the facts as stated in its reasoning. 1) From April 16, 2010 to June 8, 2010, Defendant A borrowed money from her husband for the purpose of using it as a delinquent tax payment for election campaign and election campaign personnel expenses, etc., who is the husband, and Defendant A did not have an obligation to pay interest, which is the payment for election expenses, and Defendant A received from her husband, thereby maintaining the political fund from 2010 to 201.