2. Determination:

A. In light of the circumstances stated in the judgment below, the court below held that it is difficult to view that the defendant, with the sole evidence submitted by the prosecutor, was proving that the defendant carried out a prior election campaign for I by forming a meeting of this case, and that the defendant held the meeting of this case for the election campaign of I.

As long as the meeting of this case cannot be deemed to have been used for an election campaign of I, the defendant was found not guilty of all the charges of this case on the ground that even if the defendant was to bear the food, it cannot be viewed as a contribution act for I.

B. In addition to the circumstances found by the lower court’s judgment, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of conducting a prior election campaign to I by forming the instant gathering to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was a contribution act for I with the Defendant’s burden on his food on the grounds as stated in the reasoning of the lower judgment.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error as alleged by the prosecutor, so the prosecutor's allegation of mistake is without merit.

1. As the lower court properly pointed out, if the Defendant, from the beginning, intended to use the instant gathering for an election campaign for I, he/she made mutual communication with I or Y, an election campaign manager, etc. after January 4, 2016, which was determined to hold the instant gathering.