1. Of the judgment of the court below, the guilty part against Defendant A and the violation of the Political Fund Act related to “local executive secretary’s salary”.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the facts-misunderstanding and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the part not guilty against Defendant A and the facts charged against Defendant B can be sufficiently convicted, but the court below found the not guilty guilty of the facts-misunderstanding and the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (3 million won in penalty) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

According to the records, the court below found Defendant A not guilty of violation of the law on political funds related to “regional executive secretary’s salary” among the facts charged against Defendant A, and did not indicate it in the order. This constitutes a case where the judgment was omitted, and the appellate court, even if there is no party’s assertion, shall reverse the omitted part of the judgment below and render a judgment on that part (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7848, Feb. 12, 2009, etc.). Therefore, the part of the judgment below against Defendant A among the judgment below is no longer maintained, and since the facts charged with Defendant A with the omission of judgment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the facts charged with the omission of judgment as above, the conviction against Defendant A and the part related to “regional executive secretary’s salary” related to political funds should be reversed in its entirety.

B. Although the prosecutor’s factual misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the prosecutor’s factual misunderstanding, the prosecutor’s factual misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal doctrine still are subject to the judgment of this court.

(1) The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the part related to the violation of the Political Fund Act related to the “regional executive secretary’s benefit” (the Defendants).