1. Article 112(2)5 of the Public Official Election Act and Article 50(5)2(a) of the Rules on the Management of Public Officials Election Act provide that the act of providing foods of tea and tea to executives and members of a political party or persons engaged in election affairs, who are attending the ceremony of opening an election campaign office, shall not be deemed as a contribution act by stipulating that the act of providing foods of tea and tea to the executives and members of a political party or persons engaged in election affairs, within the ordinary scope, shall not be deemed as a courtesy act. The above "food of tea and tea" shall be deemed as the same meaning as "food of tea and tea, rice tea, lavered rice, lavered rice, beverage, beverage, etc." under Article 112(2)1(e) of the Public Official Election Act. In light of the regulatory form, even if tea and tea are not fruit, it constitutes "food of tea and tea" under the above Article 112(2)1(e) of the Public Official Election Act (see Supreme Court Order 2005Mo939, Aug. 29, 2005).

According to the records, Defendant 1’s life of this case was provided 10 points at the 16:0 p.m.’s election campaign office and 500 won per tree table without any doubt. The degree of 10 persons can be seen as 10 times per table, Kim Han-si, 2-si, 2-si, 2-si, 1-day, and 1-day, and the life of this case was 10 points at the 1-day, and the life of this case was 10 points at the 1-day, and the price of this case’s life was 50 won per head. The judgment of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to food and drinks, etc. as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, on the following grounds: (a) the quantity of the instant life was 16:00 p.m. at the beginning of the 16:0 p.m., food and pigs; and (b) the life of this case was divided into food and drinks to customers, and thus, it can not be viewed as the food and food of this case’s.

2. In the interpretation of Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a prosecutor may not assert the grounds for appeal that the determination of the court below's punishment is light (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1705 delivered on August 12, 1994).

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)