All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In misunderstanding of the legal principles, the case of offering money, goods, etc. to a candidate who is not an elector or who is not eligible to be an elector as the other party cannot be acknowledged as the first "purpose of being elected or not to be elected". ② The crime of violating Article 22 (2) 1 of the aforementioned Community Credit Cooperatives Act is a provision responding to the violation of Article 230 of the Public Official Election Act. Article 230 of the Public Official Election Act stipulates only the one who is eligible to be an elector or elector as the other party to purchase. In light of the fact that Article 230 of the above Public Official Election Act provides that only the one who is eligible to be an elector or elector shall be punished for the offering of entertainment to the non-voting members, the scope of punishment is excessively extended. ③ Since a representative is already determined and is included in the list of members and their family members who are not eligible to be elected, it is difficult to see that the other party, such as money, goods, and entertainment, etc. under Article 22 (2) 1 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act, has the nature of election to be excessively limited.

(2) In addition, the above meetings are meal expenses, since executives of a credit cooperative and members who are their branch members hold annual meetings.