The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. Article 58 of the Act on Entrusted Elections by Public Organizations, Etc. (hereinafter “Entrusted Election Act”) provides that an elector (including a person eligible to be recorded in the elector’s list before preparing the elector’s list), his/her family members, or an institution, organization, or facility established and operated by his/her family members, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years, or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won, or by a person who expresses his/her intention to offer, or promises to offer, money, goods, entertainment, or other economic benefits, or a public or private job (Article 1); and a person who instructs, solicits, mediates, or demands such an act (Article 4).

B. Here, “election campaign” refers to an active and planned act that is necessary and favorable for winning or defeating an election in an entrusted election as provided in Article 3 of the Entrustment Election Act (Article 23 of the Entrustment Election Act). Specifically, in determining whether an act constitutes an election campaign, the type of an act as well as the name of the act, namely, the manner of time, place, method, etc. where the act is conducted, and whether the act is an act accompanying the purpose of promoting the election or defeat of a specific candidate ought to be objectively determined from the perspective of the elector (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11812, Aug. 26, 2016, etc.). In addition, the entrusted election law aims to contribute to the sound development of public organizations, etc. and the development of a democratic society by ensuring that an election by a public organization, etc. is carried out clean and fairly. Thus, “goods to be elected” as provided in Article 23 of the Entrustment Election Act is goods, entertainment, and other property interest, and public corporation (hereinafter referred to as “goods to be elected”).