All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) As each disbursement recorded in the instant facts charged was carried out by means of account transfer under the communication with, or management and control of, the intent of, an accountant in charge of an election campaign office with interest on his/her father and wife, the Defendant’s act is permissible pursuant to the proviso to Article 36(1)2 of the Act.

B) Expenditure stated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the List of Offenses in the holding of the court below was committed directly by H, not the defendant.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 800,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) First, the admissibility of each written answer to Defendant and H by the election commission 1) is examined as to the admissibility of the evidence of the written answer to the Defendant. According to the records, the Defendant consented to the above written answer at the court below as evidence, and it can be known that the Defendant did not cancel or withdraw it before the examination of evidence is completed. Thus, the above written answer is admissible.

B) Next, I examine the admissibility of the written answer to H as to the admissibility of evidence, which constitutes “documents in which the statement of a person other than the defendant prepared by the person other than the defendant, is written,” as prescribed by Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5441, Jan. 16, 2014). According to the records, H recognized that H appeared as a witness at the court below and recognized the authenticity of its establishment. Thus, H’s explanation of the answer to the written answer at the time of examination of witness is not to deny the authenticity of its establishment, but to the purport that H partially explained of the answer at the time of examination of witness is not to deny the authenticity of its establishment, but to the purport of the answer at the time of examination of witness is admissible as evidence.

2) The Defendant’s assertion related to Article 36(1) proviso 2 of the Political Fund Act also asserts the same purport in the lower court.