A. The court below determined that the fund raised by the defendant does not constitute an organization-related fund by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, although the defendant's labor union of the agency D (hereinafter "the labor union of this case") and democratic labor union, which was the chairperson of the Trade Union of this case, were led by using the tax credit system in a legal manner, and provided political funds to democratic labor parties, the court below held that the fund raised by the defendant does not constitute an organization. In so determining, the court below erred

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the amount of KRW 300,000 of a fine) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) If a corporation or organization prohibits the donation of political funds from funds related thereto even if a corporation or organization does not make a contribution of political funds by itself under Article 31(2) of the Political Funds Act, only if the corporation or organization is related in any form, it shall not be deemed that the “funds related to a corporation or organization” is subject to the donation under Article 31(2) of the Political Funds Act, and a corporation or organization may not be deemed to fall under “funds related to a corporation or organization” that is subject to the donation under Article 31(2) of the Political Funds Act, by actively and actively participating in the raising and raising of the donation funds. It shall be deemed to fall under “funds related to a corporation or organization”

Furthermore, in a specific case, whether the fund is related to a corporation or organization should be determined by examining the overall process of the fund raising and raising, the form of the fund raising and raising, the size of the fund raised, the details of the fund raising and raising, and the interests of donors, etc.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do15418, Mar. 14, 2013). (2) The lower court held that the Defendant from the members of the instant trade union.