The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of KRW 1,00,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine as follows.

A) In light of the fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, the Defendant attempted to provide food to the head of the Ri and the employees of the relevant agency who attended the meeting of February 2016, according to the practice in which the head of the Dong and the head of the Dong completed a meeting of a usual meeting. Before that, the Defendant was able to listen to K preliminary candidates and L with a view to personnel management in the foregoing group.

The attending the meal group of this case was divided into the participants and personnel, and there was no act of appeal for support to the participants or introduction as candidates.

In a meal meeting prepared as such, the Defendant’s act of providing food does not correspond to “contribution” under the Public Official Election Act, but does not constitute “pre-election” and did not have an intention to make a contribution to K for the Defendant.

B) Whether a person constitutes “a person who wishes to become a candidate” under the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11374, Feb. 29, 2012; Act No. 14073, Mar. 3, 2016; hereinafter “former Public Official Election Act”) ought to be based on “the pertinent election” in question.

Defendant’s food was provided

At the time of February 2, 2016, the participants in the CL constituency were most residents of the CL constituency before the CMF election district was integrated. However, K does not constitute “a person who wishes to become a candidate” as a preliminary candidate for the CMF election district. Therefore, it does not constitute a violation of the Public Official Election Act by means of contribution and advance election campaign.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

On the second trial date of the trial of the court of first instance, a prosecutor shall be from among the facts charged of this case.