1. As to the grounds for appeal by the Defendants, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of violation of the Public Official Election Act by means of prior election campaign against the Defendants, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding unfair and unfavorable principles, the scope of adjudication in an appellate court, prior election campaign, etc., or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation due to logical and empirical rules, without exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged in the part of the charge of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the purchase of the Defendants as conjunctively added at the lower court’s judgment is as follows: “The Defendants conspired to invite the 20th National Assembly member to win the H as a preliminary candidate for the 20th National Assembly member of the Daegu FG in the Daegu FG; on February 11, 2016, six Gu residents of Daegu, including N (hereinafter “N”) paid 65,624 won to the said six electors for the same amount of monetary benefits.

“.....”

In applying the provisions of Article 230 (1) 1 of the Public Service Election Act to the election of the local constituency National Assembly member, the lower court presumed that the scope of “an elector” as provided in the above provision includes only the elector in a specific local constituency where the person having the effect of the purchase becomes a candidate or intends to become a candidate.

In addition, Article 25 (2) of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 14073, Mar. 3, 2016) / [Attachment 1] / [Attachment 1] has lost the effect of the vote of the constituency district of a National Assembly member due to the Constitutional Court’s decision inconsistent with the Constitution, and the state of legal gap is respectively in such a state of legal gap.