The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the summary of the grounds for appeal and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, determined that the head of the association, as the representative, confused with the civil administrative part on whom the legal effect of the act belongs to anyone, and the criminal part on whom the principal of the contribution belongs.

In addition, Article 36 of the Act on Entrusted Elections by Korea Public Organizations, Etc. (hereinafter “Entrusted Election Act”) is an exception to compelling the clarification of the source of expenses, since it is unclear whether the source of the fund is “the expense of the head of the association” or “the expense of the association” in the case of “the expense of the association” under Article 33(1)2(a) and (b) of the Act on Entrusted Elections by Korea.

Therefore, in the case of Article 33 (1) 1 (b) of the Trust Election Act, there is no room to intervene in the “personal expenses of the president of the cooperative” in the “in the case of money and goods executed in accordance with the business plan and the branch budget of the consignment organization,” and there is no need to establish a separate exception provision stating that the “personal expenses of the president of the cooperative” should be provided in the name of the consignment organization, and there is no need to establish a separate exception provision stating the source of the fund.

Therefore, in the case of Article 33(1)1(b) of the Trust Election Act, only “the name of the entrusting organization” should be used. Thus, if the Defendant entered “the name of the president of the cooperative” in providing the instant gift gift sets to its members, then the Defendant provided it as “the name of the entrusting organization.”

As such, it constitutes a contribution act under Article 32 of the Trust Election Act.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts concerning contribution act or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged regarding the Defendant’s violation of the Election Act committed by the prosecutor of the gist of the facts charged in this case are as follows.

On March 11, 2015, the Defendant is the president of a cooperative with G Agriculture established at the same time throughout the country.