The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1 million.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part of the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below in which the Defendant provided money and valuables to A in relation to the part of the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant employed A as a driver and paid a monthly wage in return for performing driving duties, not paying money in relation to an election campaign. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. Defendant B’s penalty (2 million won) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

C. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s grounds for appeal prior to their judgment.

The lower court determined that there was a single comprehensive crime as to the second crime as to Defendant A’s judgment.

However, each crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the No. 2 in the holding is established by each of the persons who received money and valuables as a consideration for election campaign, and therefore, all of the acts of offering money and valuables to seven persons are in

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do1432 delivered on April 9, 199). Nevertheless, the lower court committed each of the crimes of Article 2 in the judgment of Defendant A as a blanket crime, and such illegality affected the judgment. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant A in this respect was no longer maintained.

However, even if there is an ex officio reversal ground in the judgment of the court below on the part of defendant A, the defendant A's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court of this court.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Defendant A’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is that Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act provides allowances, actual expenses, and other benefits in accordance with the Public Official Election Act.