A. Defendant A, as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below, has given good faith to the participants of the pottery Village General Assembly and the AH Saemaul Women's Association general meeting, but there is a fact that Defendant A had personnel, but it is merely a courtesy act and cannot be seen as an election campaign

B. Defendant B paid 120,000 won food at K cafeteria as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, but it is merely a formal act and thus cannot be seen as an election campaign.

2. The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail, with a detailed statement of the judgment on the issue under the title “the judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion.”

Examining the judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, it is sufficiently justified, and the judgment of the court below does not contain any error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the Defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.