All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Article 63(1) of the Act on Entrusted Elections including misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of facts (hereinafter “Entrusted Election Act”) does not stipulate “purposes that may affect an election” as the requirement, in light of the details of the enactment of the Entrusted Election Act and the provisions of relevant statutes, the affirmative intent of allowing a specific person to vote in order to exercise influence on an election should be premised upon the application of Article 63(1) of the Entrusted Election Act. The Defendants are allowed to register certain unqualified persons on the register of members in the process of endeavoring to maintain the maximum number of members in accordance with the mitigated standard regardless of the election in a situation where the existence of an association is threatened by the regulations on authorizing the establishment of an unreal-real partnership, and there is no purpose that may affect the election of the Defendants, and thus, Article 63(1) of the Act on Entrusted Election does not apply to the Defendants, as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there was no perception that “the Defendants should be wrong on the list” like the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below.

Nevertheless, Article 63(1) of the Trust Election Act does not stipulate the “purposes that may affect the election” as a requirement for its composition, so it is sufficient to recognize that the “purposes that may affect the election” is “to be entered in the electoral registry by false means,” and there is such perception as to the Defendants.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and by misunderstanding facts.

B. As to the punishment sentenced by the court below (the defendants and the prosecutor), the defendants asserts that the punishment (the fine of 2 million won, the fine of 1 million won, the defendant B, and each of the fines of 1 million won for the defendant A), the defendants are too unfluened, and the prosecutor is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(a)the requirement of section 63(1) of the Trust Election Act, which shall affect the election;