The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the violation of the Public Official Election Act by inducing purchase and understanding of the ancillary facts charged related to the provision of food is as follows.

On April 13, 2016, the Defendant worked as a consultant at the H election campaign office, a candidate for the 20th National Assembly member G constituency, which was implemented on April 13, 2016, and B was a person who was working as a severe occupational alert at H election campaign office.

The Defendant, along with B, prepared a meal meeting with H and voters registered as a candidate for the election district for the 20th National Assembly National Assembly member G constituency and planned to enable H to communicate with each elector, and the Defendant calculated the meal cost. On January 8, 2016, the Defendant provided food equivalent to KRW 196,00 [280,000, 7 (excluding Defendant, B, and H) ± 10] food after gathering seven electors, such as K, L, and M, to a restaurant located in G, and offered food equivalent to KRW 196,00,00, 7 (excluding Defendant, B, and H) ± [10] food, and allowed H to attend the said place. H promotion and support of his achievements, such as construction at the time of N market employment, which was conducted by the Defendant in collusion with B, provided the same food as KRW 196,00, to the voters for the purpose of getting elected.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act does not constitute an act of inducing purchase and understanding under the former Public Official Election Act as long as the purchase and understanding of a constituency for the National Assembly member has ceased to have effect from January 1, 2016 by the Constitutional Court’s decision inconsistent with the Constitution, and determined that it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant provided the elector with property benefits for the purpose of election for H, and that the Defendant was not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

3. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

(i).