A. The lower court found each of the instant charges guilty of violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to Defendant B and C’s violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act, ② violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to Defendant C and D’s solicitation for waiver of registration, ③ Defendants’ demand for waiver of registration, provision, and waterway, ④ Defendant B and C’s violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to election expenses revenue and expenditure (Article 2(a) of the Local Education Autonomy Act, ⑤ Defendant B’s violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to the provision of money and other valuables related to the election campaign (Article 2(b) of the original judgment), ⑤ Defendant C’s provision of money and other valuables related to the election campaign, and the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to the direction of election campaign against minors (Article 2(c) of the original judgment).

B. The prosecutor of the judgment before remanded the case, on the grounds of erroneous determination or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the acquittal portion against the Defendants, each of the conviction portion against Defendant B and C, on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, the judgment prior to remand accepted the prosecutor's grounds for appeal on the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to Defendant C and D's solicitation to waive the registration of candidates (the second part) and the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to the request for the provision of compensation for the waiver of the registration of candidates, provision and waterway (the third part) and the prosecutor's appeal on the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act (the third part). The judgment of the court below is guilty.