The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant D and N is reversed.

Defendant

D due to the illegal acceptance of political funds in its holding.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts about the demand for the loan related to the candidate recommendation or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A requested Defendant A to borrow KRW 5 billion of election-related expenses on one occasion at the request of J party J party (hereinafter “M party”) following the announcement of proportional representative candidates, and Defendant A did not demand Defendant B to borrow several times before and after the recommendation of the candidate for proportional representative candidates as indicated in this part of the facts charged. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts based on evidence.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the part of the loan promise related to the candidate recommendation or misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant B, prior to the announcement of the candidate-recommended proportional representative party A, only sought a loan of KRW 5 billion for the election-related expenses from Defendant A prior to the announcement of the candidate-recommended proportional representative, and there is an intention to make it difficult to withdraw it easily by social norms, and thus, it appears externally and objectively. Although there was no fact, the court below found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment on the evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of

(2) The facts charged by the prosecutor’s misapprehension of the legal principles pertaining to defects in the unspecified and proprietary interests of the subject matter of the recommendation of a candidate are mixed with the expressions such as “provision of KRW 5 billion”, “loan of KRW 5 billion”, “request for provision of money or goods”, and “contract for provision of money or goods”. Thus, it is unclear whether the subject matter of a public prosecution is mere provision of money or goods, and if borrowed money, the amount of pecuniary benefits should be specified, and if borrowed money, the amount of pecuniary benefits should be specified.