A. Defendant 1) In the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant 3’s evidence list No. 3, “record (written accusation)” (written evidence No. 20), “record No. 21” (written evidence No. 103), “record No. 25” (written evidence No. 126) (written evidence No. 126), “record No. 378)” (written evidence No. 377 (written evidence No. 481 of the evidence record), “record No. 58” (written evidence No. 481 of the evidence record), “No. 63 of cell phone recording No. 63” (written evidence No. 1 of this case) adopted by the lower court constituted evidence, and even if the recording party did not have any influence on the evidence No. 265 of this case, the lower court found Defendant No. 265 of the record No. 1 of this case to be admissible as evidence without accusation, in violation of the law of evidence No. 265. 3 of this case.

B) Even if the Defendant took the same speech as indicated in the facts charged against the employees and executive officers of the E Olympic Sports Association due to the violation of the Act on Election of Public Officials due to the inducement of number and understanding, the said speech is merely a customary private personnel class, and does not constitute an expression of intent to provide money or property benefits, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C) Since a local council member violating the Public Official Election Act due to an illegal election campaign is allowed to engage in an election campaign pursuant to the proviso to Article 60(1)4 of the Public Official Election Act, it shall be construed that he/she is excluded from the application of Article 85(2) of the Public Official Election Act. Even if not, the Defendant is a public official.