1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant A is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 900,00.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to the establishment of a similar institution (Article 2) of the Local Education Autonomy Act related to the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act (Article 2) hereinafter “AD office” office of this case (hereinafter “instant office”) is not established for the purpose of election campaign of the Defendant, but merely established for the purpose of preparing internal elections, and thus does not constitute “a similar institution” under Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and even if the office falls under a similar institution, there was no conspiracy for the establishment of C, D, and E.

B) Since there was no election campaign by using the instant office that the Defendant registered as a preliminary candidate before February 4, 2014, with respect to the violation of the Political Funds Act due to the illegal receipt of political funds (Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the original judgment), the goods provided by E prior to the said temporary holiday cannot be deemed as a case where the political funds provided by Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act are contributed. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (Article 3 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

B. As the allowances and actual expenses that the Defendant was not paid as an election campaign worker exceeds the oil amount provided by the Defendant C, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received money exceeding the allowances and actual expenses under the Public Official Election Act.

C. The public prosecutor’s sentence against the Defendants (an unreasonable sentencing on Defendants A, B, and C) (an administrative fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B, and C): The respective administrative fines of KRW 2.5 million are too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. As to the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to the establishment of similar agencies, the lower court’s judgment on the part of the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act, i.e., the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined: