The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of door-to-door visit refers to "the defendant found at the house of the members of the association located in the B of the Y in the B of the Y in the B of the Y in the B of the Y and the B of the 201:00 am on August 12, 2013," and "the defendant asked for an error.

8. From 13. to 13., members visited each other for an election campaign by finding out in the house I of the members H in the Y in the Y in the Y of the Jeonnam-gun, leaving the name of the Dong, and asking for support by stating that it is “one time and one time and one hundreds.”

“The court below found all of the above door-to-door visits to be guilty, and sentenced to concurrent crimes.

Article 172 (2) 1 and Article 50 (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act stipulate the act that a person who intends to become an officer visits members of the cooperative to door for an election campaign during the period stipulated by articles of association as an illegal election campaign and punish him/her.

The crime of door-to-door visits is established by continuously visiting two or more units (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do937, Jun. 14, 2002). If it is deemed that two or more units of door-to-door visits continuously have been visited for the purpose of a single election campaign by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the timing and time of the relevant election and the statutory election period, details and place of door-to-door visits, time, relationship with residents, etc., the establishment thereof is recognized, and the continuity of each door-to-door visits recognized as such is in the relation of a single comprehensive offense

In light of the above legal principles, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant continuously visited the members G and I house for the purpose of a single election campaign, and even though all of them are in the relation of a single comprehensive election campaign, the court below should consider the act of door-to-door visit as concurrent crimes.