1. All the judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendant A and C’s imprisonment for one year, Defendant N,O, P, Q, R, T, C, AC, and BE.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C1) misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant did not issue to D a list of election campaigners or orders for election campaigners to manage the election campaign workers and pay daily allowances, and there was no fact that the Defendant instructed or participated in the establishment of the AZ, and even though the AZ does not fall under a similar institution under Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act, the first instance court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant is a similar institution under the Public Official Election Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The first instance court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant AG Defendant did not receive money from D, the lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant received money from D, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. Each sentence sentenced by the court below against the above defendants (two years of imprisonment for the defendants A, two million won of punishment, Q, Q, R, S, AD, AE, AI, and 1.7 million won of fine for each of the above defendants, five million won of fine for each of the above defendants N and AF and 1.5.3 million won of fine for each of the above defendants T and BE, 4 months of imprisonment for each of the above defendants, 1.7 million won of fine for each of the above 1.7 million won of collection, and 1.7 million won of punishment for the defendant A and 1.7 million won of punishment for the defendant AC, 6 months of imprisonment for each of the above 1.7 million won of collection, and 1.7 million won of collection for the defendant AC) are too unreasonable.

The first instance court's sentence against Defendant C, N,O, P, Q, R, S, AD, AE, AF, AG, AI, and AJ is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the above assertion by the Defendants ex officio, the following facts are examined: ① the Prosecutor’s first instance court’s judgment on the instant case No. 2015, Sep. 23, 2011 with respect to the case No. 2014, Sept. 23, 2011; and ② the Prosecutor’s judgment on September 23, 201 with respect to the charges No. 1445, Sep. 23, 2011.