Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to facts constituting an offense No. 2 in the judgment of the court below alleged to be erroneous or erroneous, the Defendant provided expenses in relation to preparing an election campaign or a competitive election campaign rather than for an election campaign, but the court below convicted Defendant 1 of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s sentence (two years of suspended sentence in one year of imprisonment) that declared unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles, the crime of violation of Article 230(1)4 and Article 135(3) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials refers to an affirmative and planned act that is objectively recognized as the purpose of promoting the election or defeat in the election, and the act of offering money, goods, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign is subject to punishment. The subject of punishment is not limited to offering money, goods, or other benefits during the election campaign period as prescribed by the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do910, Dec. 23, 2010, etc.). Article 135(3) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials refers to any act necessary or favorable for a specific candidate’s election or winning in the election, which is objectively recognized as the objective of promoting the election or defeat in the election. The mere act of preparing an internal or procedural preparation for the election campaign or the ordinary method of activities of a candidate, which is, the method and method of preparing an election campaign, as well as the specific act.

And Article 135.