The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether applicable Acts and subordinate statutes are illegal and the legality of exercising authority to institute a public prosecution (Ground of appeal No. 1);

A. Article 135(3) of the Election of Public Officials Act prohibits an act, such as offering money, valuables, or other benefits, or expressing an intention or promising to offer money, valuables, or other benefits, in connection with the election campaign, regardless of the pretext, except where allowances, actual expenses, or other benefits are provided in accordance

Article 230(1)4 of the Public Official Election Act provides that “any person who offers, expresses an intention to offer, or promises to offer money, goods, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext, such as allowances, actual expenses, other compensation for volunteers, in violation of Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act.”

Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, Article 5 of the same Act provides that “any person who offers, expresses his/her intention to offer, or promises to offer money, goods, and other benefits shall be punished in return for posting letters, voice, images, or videos, etc. on the Internet homepage on the bulletin board or toilet room, etc. of the Internet homepage or sending e-mail message.”

Comparing Article 230(1)4 and Article 230(1)5 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 230(1)4 provides for punishing acts such as offering money, valuables, and other benefits in relation to election campaigns except as otherwise provided in the Public Official Election Act, and subparagraph 5 provides for punishing acts such as offering money, valuables, and other benefits in return for acts such as transmission of letters by unlawful means or posting on bulletin boards on the Internet homepage in order to influence election.

The above two provisions are different in terms of constituent requirements and regulatory objects, such as the object of the violation, whether it is related to consideration, and whether it is intended to affect the election.

Therefore, the latter is not related to the former, but to the latter.