All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) The Defendant did not provide a set of money for the purpose of being elected as an executive officer of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter “Agricultural Cooperative Federation”) to the head of a member cooperative, but sent a set of money to request the purchase of ginseng from the Defendant’s head of the cooperative. Thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed to have provided pecuniary benefits, such as money prohibited by the Agricultural Cooperative Act.

B) On May 3, 2016, the Defendant purchased 10 Ggypt 10, and sent them to the president of each regional ginseng agricultural cooperative (hereinafter “ginseng”). However, the president of the ginseng agricultural cooperative, the president of the agricultural cooperative, who immediately refused or received the delivery of the instant products, was in return after being temporarily kept in custody.

Therefore, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as “providing money, money, entertainment, or other property benefits as stipulated in the Agricultural Cooperative Act.”

C) In the case of the director of the NAF, the director of the NAF is prohibited from engaging in an election campaign without being elected as the president, and the person recommended by the NAF recommendation meeting as the executive officers of the NAF. As such, even if the Defendant engaged in the act identical to the facts charged in the instant case,

Even if it is not possible to punish the violation of Articles 172(1) and 2, 50(1)1(a), and 161 of the Agricultural Cooperative Act as non-performance of penal provisions.

D) The Defendant, as the head of E’s association, uses a corporate card of the association for resolving the deterioration of management due to the extreme burden of interest on inventory ginseng, and thus cannot be said to be an act contrary to his/her occupational duty.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 3 million for a crime of violating the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and a fine of KRW 2 million for an occupational breach of trust) is too excessive.