All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The Defendant’s act by misunderstanding the legal principles of the grounds for appeal does not assist the offender in the violation of Article 26(2) subparag. 1 of the National Sports Promotion Act (hereinafter “Act”), but aids and abets the principal offender’s violation of Article 26(2) subparag. 3 of the Act.

The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of 30 million won) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court is too uncomfortable and unfair.

Judgment

In addition to the legislative purport of Article 26(2) of the National Sports Promotion Act as to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the legislative purport of Article 26(2) of the same Act, Article 26 of the Act prohibits a person, other than an entrusted business entity or an entrusted business entity, from providing property or property benefits (hereinafter “similar act”) to a person who issued (including issuing through an information and communications network) sports promotion voting rights or any similar things and issued (including issuing through an information and communications network), a provision prohibiting the following acts related to similar acts under Article 26(2) in addition to prohibiting such a person from providing property or property benefits. The purport of Article 26(1) of the Act is to prevent the original and effective provision of property promotion rights (see Supreme Court Decision 20Do1621, Jan. 12, 2017; 20Do1627, Feb. 16, 2016).