A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not make an act of contribution to the members of the association. Defendant 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous or, in light of the results of the first instance’s examination and the results of the additional examination of evidence by the time of closing argument in the appellate trial, unless there are exceptional circumstances where maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unreasonable, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance.

(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on this part of the facts charged, and found the Defendant guilty of the above facts charged, on the following grounds: (a) the lower court acknowledged the credibility of the aforementioned testimony after the direct examination of evidence, including G, and the process of the examination of witnesses, etc. was conducted; and (b) the lower court clearly erred in its determination of the credibility of the above statements.

It is not clearly unreasonable to maintain the judgment of the court below on the credibility or credibility of the judgment.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below including the above statements, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that the defendant provided cash to the union members as stated in this part of the facts charged and the defendant's assertion on this part is not accepted.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing (the defendant and the prosecutor) was elected by the difference between the second-class obtained votes and the fourth-five votes, and the provision of money and valuables by the defendant affected the election result.