1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below decided that the defendants' act of donation in this case, which the court of first instance adopted a certain means and method, is clear by the statement that the defendants' act of donation in this case was not to be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, and thus, the defendants' act of donation in violation of the Public Official Election and Prevention of Election Malpractice Act, which resulted in the invalidation of election of the above non-indicted 1 supported by the defendants, and that the defendants' act of donation in this case should not be used again, and that the court below's decision that the above act of donation in future should not be reproduced again, and that the court below's decision that the defendant's act of donation in this case should not be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor only from the intention of nullifying the above non-indicted 1's election, and that the court below's decision that the crime of donation in this case is prohibited by the law, and that the defendant's act of donation in this case should not be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or a person in charge of accounting, with prison labor for the above reasons.

In addition, the defendants' defense counsel should make a reasonable decision in accordance with the criminal policy standard that serves as the basis of the Criminal Act. However, the defendants' assertion that the sentencing of the court below constitutes "when there is a substantial reason to recognize that the sentencing of the court below deviates from the scope of discretion and is extremely unfair." However, in this case where imprisonment with labor for less than 10 years is sentenced, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act to the effect that the sentencing of the court below is excessively unfair. The arguments are without merit.

2. Examining the evidence related to the record, the judgment of the court below that recognized that the defendant's creation record provided the non-indicted 2 with the 200,000 won gold and 480,000 won gold to the defendant Kim Jong-soo at the court below's judgment was justifiable, and there is no error of law in finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence or in misunderstanding of legal principles as to the recognition of a crime, as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, or there is no error of law as to the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the misunderstanding of a crime. All arguments are without merit.

3. The court below held that, at the time of the 15th National Assembly general election, any candidate for the National Assembly member cannot be deemed to have distributed money or goods to the same extent as this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the prosecutor intentionally engaged in so-called aggressive investigation, such as intentionally concentrated control and surveillance activities only with respect to the above non-party 1 who is the candidate for the 15th National Assembly member, and rather, in light of the proviso to investigation and the indictment details of the case as indicated in the investigation records, and the criminal facts acknowledged by the court below, it cannot be deemed that the prosecutor's arbitrary exercise of authority to institute a prosecution, and thus the prosecution procedure of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, in light of the records, it is just and acceptable in light of the records, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to abuse of authority to institute a public prosecution. The argument also does not have merit.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)