The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 900,00, and by a fine of KRW 700,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) and misunderstanding of the legal principles (Defendant A) require a door-to-door visit prohibited by the Act on Entrusted Elections (hereinafter “Entrusted Election Act”) among the lower judgment (hereinafter “Entrusted Election Act”), including cooperative members G, I, Q, and partially public organizations, to be continuously conducted two or more houses. Examining the dates of door-to-door visits as indicated in the lower judgment, the visit to I does not constitute a door-to-door visit, on December 2, 2015, since there is no time-to-door visit to I, on December 2, 2015, on the first day, and around 14:00 as of the end of December 2015, and on January 1 through 7, 2016, on the second day, visit to Q, and on December 14:0 as of the end of December 2015, it does not constitute a prohibition of door-to-door visit.

B) The real estate office of S in part of the lower judgment constitutes an open place where many people have come to and gather at a store.

Therefore, the act of visiting the above office or distributing name cards does not constitute a violation of the method of door-to-door visit or distribution of name cards.

2) The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 1.5 million; Defendant B: a fine of KRW 1.5 million) against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. Of the judgment of the court below, Article 23 of the Act on the Election of Entrusted with U as to the part of the judgment of the court below (misunderstanding of legal principles) stipulates that an election campaign is conducted in order to prevent or cause to be elected, and the other party to the election campaign is not limited to the elector.

Therefore, in light of the defendant's act, although U is a non-member, prior election campaign, etc. is established regardless of whether U is a non-member, the judgment of the court below acquitted of this part of the facts charged on the premise that U is a member of the association.

2) Since the Defendant, among the lower judgment, delivered the name cards prior to the election campaign period, the Defendant, among the non-guilty parts regarding V, T, and M, a number of people pursuant to Articles 66 subparag. 7 and 30 of the Entrustment Election Act.