2. The punishment against the Defendants shall be determined as follows.

Defendant

A. Defendant .

A. As examined below, the lower court found Defendants 1 guilty of the lower judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the guilty portion and by misjudgmenting facts, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as examined below. 2) The lower court’s sentencing on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts regarding the part not guilty (as to Defendant A, B, C, and Incorporated Foundation E) as indicated in the lower judgment (as to Defendant A, C, and Incorporated Foundation E (hereinafter “E”) on December 12, 2011.

(2) The transfer of KRW 10 million from an account in the name of Defendant C to the account in the name of Defendant C is deemed to be the L Federation (hereinafter “L Federation”).

(2) The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Defendant A, B, C, and Incorporated Foundation E: The crime of Article 1 (Contribution Act by Holding Q) as indicated in the judgment of the court below (a summary of the grounds for appeal) held by CH Si on November 3, 201, as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant Q”) is not practically held by Defendant A as the chief director of the incorporated foundation E (hereinafter “E”), but it is not held by a conspiracy between E and L Federation.

B) The instant Q is not held in relation to the election of the 19th National Assembly members, but is not held for Defendant A by a person who wishes to be a candidate for the instant election. Moreover, it is not by a method presumed that Defendant A contributes to the said election. (C) Defendant A, B, and C are entitled to CHA’s reply, and the election commission held the instant music meeting in accordance with the reply of CHA (hereinafter “CHA”, and the election commission held the instant music meeting. Therefore, there is justifiable reason to believe that it is not a crime.

2. The facts cited by the lower court’s judgment are legitimate.