The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) even though the person was registered as an office worker related to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below and did not register with the competent election management commission as stated in the judgment of the court below, if the actual candidate agreed to receive a certain amount of money in return for work, and provided a prescribed work under the direction and supervision of the candidate for an election, he may be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act; and (b) if allowances and actual expenses were to be paid, the employer shall pay them; (c) although E was not registered as an office worker; (d) provided a work under the direction of the defendant as a person related to the election for three days from March 31, 2016, since E provided a work under the direction of

This does not constitute the provision of money, valuables, or other benefits prohibited by section 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges that the Defendant provided money and valuables to E in connection with the election campaign. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

The Defendant related to Paragraph 2 of the facts stated in the judgment below, hearing the answer that it is possible for him to pay E’s allowance, which is the cause of the unregistered election, through F, which is the cause of the registered election affairs, from the person in charge of the Election Management Committee, and paid consideration to E in a manner of covering the election campaign period of F in the statement of allowances and actual expenses, as stated in Paragraph 1 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and T, S,O, and P also made an election campaign from March 3, 2014, although the election campaign was held from March 31, 2016, in fact, if the actual commencement date of the election campaign and the registration date of the office members differs, it cannot be clearly identified when the initial date of the claim for the preservation of expenses is the date of the actual election campaign as described in Paragraph 2 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.