All appeals by the Defendants and by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1 and misunderstanding of the legal principles) are personal-friendly, only the 20th election campaign candidate. M headquarters established for the duties of G (hereinafter “G”) and H (hereinafter “H”) and there is no capital or facility newly invested for the J candidate. Since the Defendants did not use M headquarters as the election campaign office for the J candidate, M headquarters cannot be deemed to have been established for the purpose of election campaign for the J candidate, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s punishment (for Defendants, four months of imprisonment and one year of suspended sentence) against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Articles 61(1) and 61(2) of the Public Official Election Act provide that “No person shall newly establish or establish an election promotion committee, supporters’ association, research institute, counseling center, or association or use an existing institution, organization, or facility, regardless of its name, on behalf of a person who intends to become a candidate or a candidate, other than an election campaign office, liaison office, and election countermeasure organization under Article 61(1) and (2).”

Whether Article 89 (1) of the Public Official Election Act constitutes an institution, organization, or facility that restricts the establishment, etc. is legitimate.