The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A and B) Defendant A did not merely lend the name of the person in charge of accounting as a person in charge of accounting, but rather discharge all the obligations of the person in charge of accounting. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the disbursement of election expenses in excess of the limited amount and omitted the disbursement of election expenses at the time of accounting report, and by misapprehending the necessity of punishment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below that found Defendant B not guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The respective sentence of the lower court (as to the Defendants: the suspended sentence; the fine of KRW 2.5 million; and the fine of KRW 800,000,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, first of all of the determination of mistake of facts (defendant A and B), determined that Defendant A could not be deemed to have intentionally committed an act of paying election expenses in excess of the amount limited by Defendant A and omitted election expenses when the accounting report was made. Furthermore, the lower court determined that Defendant B could not be punished as Defendant A and his accomplice because he found Defendant B not guilty as seen earlier of this part of the facts charged, and there was no evidence to prove otherwise that Defendant B was an accountant in charge. 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable.