The judgment below

Among the guilty parts against the Defendants and the acquitted parts, the election of public officials by contribution is in violation of the Public Official Election Act.

1. Progression of litigation and scope of adjudication of this court;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the election campaign prior to the election campaign period on January 1, 2016; the election campaign period prior to the election campaign period on February 6, 2016 for Defendant A and B; the distribution of name cards by the unlawful means on February 6, 2016; the election campaign period prior to the election campaign period on January 14, 2016 for Defendant A; all of the charges of violation of the methods of the intra-party competition campaign; the Defendants were guilty; the purchase and understanding inducement for the Defendants, who are the ancillary charges related to the payment of the self meal costs; the publication of the false facts against Defendant A, and the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the fine on the grounds that the Defendants were not guilty; and the lower court acquitted Defendant B’s fine on KRW 600,000,000; and the lower court acquitted Defendant C through the misapprehension of the legal principles as to each of the Defendants’ respective charges and the imposition of fines on KRW 50 or KRW 500.

B. Prior to remand, the trial rendered a judgment dismissing all the appeals by the Defendant and the prosecutor on the ground that the appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the party to refund on the grounds of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the portion of innocence. The Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor’s assertion partially and rendered a judgment not guilty on January 1, 2016, on the part of “the violation of the Public Official Election Act by inducement of understanding and the meaning of “an elector” under Article 230(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act, and “the purpose of election or election is to be elected,” which affected the conclusion of the judgment. This part of the judgment is due to a contribution act to the Defendants, which is the primary charge related to the settlement of meal costs.