The appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor shall be dismissed.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The defendant asserts that he will give money exceeding the ordinary speech to the person who wants to carry out an election campaign.

The court below found the defendant guilty on the basis of contradictory and defective testimony and statements without credibility.

B. In a case where there are no new objective grounds that could affect the formation of evidence during the appellate trial’s trial process, and there are no reasonable grounds to deem that the determination of evidence for the first instance was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, the judgment on the recognition of facts under the first instance deliberation shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged on the grounds of the detailed circumstances stated in the “judgment on the Defendant’s and his/her defense counsel’s assertion.”

In this part of the judgment of the court below, there is no reasonable reason to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.

In addition, there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of evidence in the trial process of one court.

The judgment of the court below is justified.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

2. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing by both parties, and where the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). This court’s new sentencing data is not submitted, and thus, compared to the lower court’s sentencing conditions.