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 defendant's ground of appeal is within the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged in the instant case, including “the portion of receiving benefits from the Z Co., Ltd. for economic severe weather alerts AA”, “the portion of receiving benefits from the Defendant’s supporters’ association X from the Z I,” “the portion of receiving political funds from the AOA.”

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles or the principle of no appeal, or in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Meanwhile, the Defendant submitted a written appeal to the effect that he/she is dissatisfied with the entire convictions against the Defendant. However, there is no indication in the grounds of appeal as to “the portion disbursed without being in charge of accounting” and “the portion submitted falsely a political fund accounting report” in the aforementioned convictions.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. As to “the portion of violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment in relation to the Tong in the name of EN, EO, and EP,” the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, can be readily concluded that the Defendant constitutes “a person who wishes to become a candidate for an election for public office” or “a person who engages in any other political activity” in August 2003 and August 2007.