Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

Defendant .

A. Defendant A misunderstanding of facts: (a) Defendant A was aware of the intent of Defendant A to support M at the time of providing meals with the Chairperson S of Q Trade Union and the Chairperson R on April 5, 2016; and (b) the content written in the Supporting Declaration and the content of the articles written in T New Daily. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (b) In so doing, the lower court’s judgment that the lower court rendered against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine cited Defendant B’s report of the newspaper “Seoul Roym Examination” along with the comments written in Article 2-A(a) of the criminal facts of the lower judgment as indicated in the judgment in the lower judgment for the purpose of opposing the assertion on January 6, 2016, as it is impossible to read and accept the text posted by X at the K Election Campaign on Pest. This is merely a mere assertion or expression of intent, and it does not constitute an “election campaign” under the Public Official Election Act, which is provided by the Public Official Election Act. Nevertheless, the lower court convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “election campaign” under the Public Official Election Act.

C. The Prosecutor (the Defendant A)’s sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by both parties against Defendant A ex officio, the prosecutor examined the case ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, and the prosecutor examined the facts in the facts charged against Defendant A as “H trade union, P trade union, and three organizations of Q trade union” in the facts charged against Defendant A as “three members of H trade union, P trade union, and Q trade union.”