A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant merely delivered a set of goods with a clear gift according to customary practice, and the Defendant did not provide goods for the purpose of election of representatives, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The Defendant attempted to provide entertainment and offer money to F, which is an executive officer of the association, after having provided a general meal with F, and to calculate the food for the purpose of election of representatives, and to give the agricultural products for the purpose of offering money, and even though having not provided a wish to provide food for the purpose of election of representatives, the lower court convicted of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the charge of the act of contribution to members only by sending the destroyed goods to the members of a scenic gift according to customary practices, and despite the absence of criminal intent to commit a contribution act, the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. (B) The provision on the restriction of election campaign under Article 50(1)1 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act is applicable only after the candidate becomes the candidate for the election. According to Article 45(5) of the same Act, the standing director shall be elected at the general meeting by the resolution of the board of directors. At the time, the Defendant’s act was prior to being decided by the personnel recommendation committee as recommended by the standing director, and thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed to violate Article 50(1)1 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act.