Of the confiscated parts of the judgment of the court below, Nos. 4 (No. 3) and No. 58 (No. 4) No. 58 (No. 3).

1. Of the judgment below, the judgment of ex officio as to the confiscated portion of the judgment below on the ground that Defendant A provided or attempted to provide the papers described in the order for criminal acts, and thus, it confiscated pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

However, if the existence of the original is lost due to consumption, loss, transfer, destruction, confusion, etc. or the identity of the original is not recognized by social norms, the original cannot be confiscated.

According to the records, Defendant A delivered a gift certificate of KRW 10,00 per share (section 3 or 30) to the members of the I church and the AZ Credit Union employees, and the above members and employees submitted a written waiver of ownership to the effect that they would return cash equivalent to the face value and waive their ownership on the ground that they already used the gift certificates after being investigated by the investigative agency, etc. The above members and employees submitted a written waiver of ownership to the effect that they would return the cash equivalent to the face value and waive their ownership on the ground that they had already used the said gift certificates. The police can find the fact that the above documents submitted as evidence following the act of contribution by candidates, etc. under the Public Official Election Act were seized as shown in the text.

In light of the above legal principles, there is no evidence to deem that the above tideland was caused by or acquired by the criminal act stipulated in Article 48(1)2 and 3 of the Criminal Act, or the goods acquired in return for such act, the lower court shall be deemed to have sentenced the sentence of forfeiture even if the tideland was not subject to forfeiture.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, there is an error of mistake of fact or violation of the law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A and his defense counsel

A. 1) The Defendant’s summary of the assertion that the contribution act was made to the electorate and an unincorporated organization is a P High School (hereinafter “P High School”).

) and BI elementary schools (hereinafter referred to as “the foregoing”);