A. Defendants A (A) of the judgment of the court below as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle as to Defendant A (Defendant A) and the remainder except for the first (l) contribution of another person’s political funds as stated in the judgment of the court below. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

(B) The lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment and four years of suspension of execution against the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act and the violation of Article 45 of the Political Funds Act) against the Defendant of unfair sentencing (the collection of a fine of KRW 5 million against the remainder of the crime of violating the Political Funds Act) is too unreasonable, and thus, it cannot be deemed that each crime of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles against Defendant B) and each crime of mistake of facts against the Defendant of the lower court’s judgment against the Defendant of unfair sentencing (the specific mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are examined later), and the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment and four years of suspension of execution) against the Defendant of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

3) The misapprehension of the legal principle on Defendant CA’s contribution act constitutes concurrent crimes by contribution act, and the statute of limitations has expired.

B) The lower court’s sentence (7 million won of fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable. (b) The lower court’s omission of the accounting report among the following: (a) misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to Defendant A), the accountant in charge of the National Assembly member, the K-class assistant officer, and the secretary X’s illegal acceptance of benefits; and (b) this part of the crime is committed continuously and repeatedly for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent of Defendant A and X, and the method of committing the crime is the same, and thus, a single comprehensive crime is established. In so determining, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the statute of limitations has expired on the facts stated in the annexed list of crimes (No. 1 or 17 of the year of 3) of the lower judgment on the ground that it is concurrent crimes.