The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground of appeal, even if an act meeting the requirements for the formation of a contribution act under the Act on Entrusted Elections such as Public Organizations, etc., if it can be deemed that it is within the scope of social order naturally created as one of the extremely normal forms of living, the illegality may be avoided as it does not violate social rules. However, it is required to be careful in recognizing illegality due to such reason (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14720, Feb. 24, 201, etc.). The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of providing three members of the Financial Cooperative, while holding office as the head of the Financial Cooperative, constitutes a method of providing 1,044,000 Du 36,00,000 won in total, and the time and amount of the Defendant’s payment of expenses, and the F Cooperative’s offering of expenses to the superior financial institution or the head of the institution in accordance with its business plan, and thus, it does not constitute a tort under Article 3(1) of the Act or the facts charged.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on contribution acts prescribed by the Act on Election of Public Organizations, Etc. and the grounds for exclusion of illegality, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the grounds of appeal No. 2 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court is an ordinary price when the lower court provides the market price of 1 set of rice tea, rice tea and rice tea, which the Defendant provided to its members.