The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) suggested that the Defendant, as an adviser of the Local Committee of the Party C, was unable to provide meals to H in order to promote reconciliation between F candidates and H.

As such, the illegality of the defendant's act to restore the order of the party and promote harmony among party members is excluded because it does not violate social rules as a kind of formal or official act.

Where the act of contribution to the judgment on the grounds for appeal is considered to be within the scope of social order naturally formed as a kind of formal or official act or ordinary political party activities, it may be justified for not violating the social rules, but it needs to be careful to recognize illegality for such reason.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018Do4075 Decided May 11, 2018, etc.). The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal. As to this, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act did not violate the social rules, and thus, it cannot be deemed as unlawful, since the Defendant’s act did not violate the food rules, inasmuch as the Defendant’s expression of intent to provide meals was not merely defective, but also at the same time as the Defendant’s spouse’s money was defective, the Defendant’s expression of intent to provide meals was also for the purpose of promoting the unity of the party. However, even if the Defendant’s expression of intent to provide meals was for the purpose of promoting the unity of the party’s own money, it cannot be deemed as an ordinary living form

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the circumstances presented by the court below are acknowledged, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i.e., the defendant merely knew of usual H as a party member and did not have any kind of relationship, such as personal sharing of meals.