All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant B) ① consistently received gift certificates from Defendant B, not Defendant B, from the first prosecutor’s office to the court below after the examination of the suspect.

The statement is made, ② there is no credibility of T’s statement, ③ W received merchandise coupons from Defendant B at the investigative agency.

Although the statement was made, the gift certificates were received from AF, not from Defendant B.

The statement is consistent until the investigation agency and the court of the court below, (4) the statement that the defendant AF received no money related to the election from the above defendant A, (5) the F consistently stated that the defendant A was paid the money after lending the money to the defendant, (6) the F's husband's land was accepted, and the F's husband's land was in possession of cash that can be lent to the defendant A, (6) the name of another person other than the defendant C was entered in the list related to the merchandise right, (3) the other person stated in the above merchandise coupon was not prosecuted, and the merchandise coupon purchased by the defendant cannot be determined as the merchandise coupon purchased by the defendant A, and (7) If the defendant B decided to commit the crime with the defendant under the family affairs, considering the empirical rule that the defendant B did not have sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilty, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Sentencing 1) The Defendants’ respective sentences (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, Defendant B’s imprisonment, 6 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant C: fine of 3 million won, and additional collection) imposed by the lower court against the Defendants are too excessive.