The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts - Each contribution act that the defendant provided money under the pretext of the I's exercise, but this was merely a support fund for the promotion of the business operated by the defendant, and the defendant did not have any plans to participate in the election at the time or expressed his will to participate in the election.

Nevertheless, the court below found each of the charges guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misunderstanding of facts in the Public Official Election Act includes not only persons who are scheduled to run in an election but also those who have objectively been aware of the intention of candidate to run in an election in light of their status, contact, speech, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2625, Jul. 26, 2007), but also those who have the intention to run in an election at the time of contribution, and their intention is not required to be confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do976, Sept. 10, 196). However, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the Defendant had the intention to run in an election at the time of contribution, as alleged in the above misunderstanding of facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do976, Sept. 10, 196).

In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant considered the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court.