Defendant

All appeals filed by the Defendants A and B and by the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On November 21, 201, 201, Defendant A1: (a) on November 21, 201, Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A1”) committed an advance election campaign by receiving BR contact and speaking to the fraternity meetings of the above restaurant to appeal for support of the Defendant; (b) but in addition, Defendant did not know that he was divided into the members of the meeting; and (c) did not memory; and (d) did not receive a report, the lower court recognized that Defendant granted a contribution act by delivering a letter to the members of the meeting. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the contribution act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) On December 7, 2011, the Defendant violated the restriction on contributions at AA restaurant, etc., and recognized the fact that the Defendant made an advance election campaign by visiting the AB meeting of the above restaurant and dividing the name of the Defendant by visiting the AB meeting of the above restaurant, providing meals together with personnel, and distributing the name of the Defendant. However, the lower court recognized that Co-Defendant E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) did not know that he did not hold the above meeting and paid meal expenses, and that it was impossible to expect this, but the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles on contributions and public invitation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. However, the lower court recognized that the Defendant did not participate in an advance election campaign by informing the head of the AS church meeting of the above restaurant affiliated with the AR restaurant of the face and requesting the support of himself.