The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the first instance court on the grounds of the Defendant’s appeal, the court below was justified in finding the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the election campaign, among the facts charged in the instant case, and of the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the election campaign by a person who is unable to carry out an election campaign.

In doing so, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on election campaigns, etc. under the Public Official Election Act.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by violating the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of responsibility in the determination of sentencing, thereby exceeding the limit of the discretion of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument of sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment, including the above argument, is unfair cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. As to the violation of the Public Official Election Act (the primary charge) by a third party’s contribution act, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the violation of the Public Official Election Act (the primary charge) by a third party’s contribution act among the facts charged in the instant case constituted a case where there is no proof of a crime among the facts charged.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In doing so, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the meaning of "election district" under Article 112 (1) of the Public Official Election Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Violation of the Public Official Election Act (Preliminary charges) due to purchase and inducement of understanding.