1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

A. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court acknowledged the fact that Defendant A conspired with Defendant C to deliver KRW 12 million to the election campaign manager or Defendant B, who caused the election campaign, KRW 8 million to E, and KRW 5 million to D (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant money and valuables”).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the degree of proof of joint principal offenders and

B. The crime of violation of Articles 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, claiming the misapprehension of legal principles as to “in relation to election campaigns,” is subject to punishment of offering, expressing an intention to offer, or promising to offer money, valuables, or other benefits in relation to election campaigns. The subject of punishment is not limited to offering money, valuables, or other benefits during the period of election campaign as prescribed by

“In relation to an election campaign” as provided by Article 135(3) of the same Act is a concept that is wider than “for an election campaign”, and is “for an election campaign” as it is “for an election campaign with the motive of matters concerning an election campaign.”

This is an expression used as it is necessary to regulate an act that is likely to infringe on the freedom of election in itself even though it does not have an intention to influence the purpose of election campaign or election, and it does not necessarily require the provision of money or goods to be the consideration for election campaign, and it includes what is related to election campaign, such as the cost for providing information related to election campaign, the cost for providing information related to election campaign, the cost for election campaign-related persons, and the cost for election campaign (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do910, Dec. 23, 2010; 2017Do13458, Dec. 5, 2017).