The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the ancillary charges added by the lower court is as follows: (a) for the purpose of having the Defendant win the I registered as a candidate for the 20th National Assembly presidential election campaign, the Defendant committed a purchase under Article 230(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act by visiting the recognition of the labor union in the instant apartment for the purpose of having him win the 20th National Assembly member, and claiming support from I on the job where many residents, such as the president E of the said apartment association and the president of the female council, etc. gather; and (b) delivering a check of one million won per face value to E, who is an elector,

As to this, the court below held that “the elector” under the above provision refers to a natural person who is separate from each organization or group under Article 230(1)2 and 3 of the Act on Election of Public Officials. The other party who issued the above check is not “the elector’s E” but “the Chairperson of the Senior Citizens Association,” and the check was not an individual E but belongs to the apartment housing association and the female council of this case.

For the reason that it is reasonable to see that the above facts charged by the defendant, which the defendant delivered the above check to the elector, did not prove the facts constituting the crime, and found the defendant not guilty on the grounds of the above facts charged.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on a purchase crime under Article 230 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act.

Although the lower court’s additional judgment (i.e., the “ elector” under the above provision means only the elector in a specific local constituency directly related to the purpose of the purchase in relation to the election of the local constituency National Assembly member, the part that determined that the Defendant’s act does not constitute an act of purchasing the “ elector” was erroneous, on the ground that the mark of the constituency district in the National Assembly area was invalid at the time of issuing the said check.