The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (the provision of money to H and I for election campaign purposes) Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, was carrying 30,000 won to H, the elector’s family, and 50,000 won, as the elector’s family. However, this was given to H’s children and I’s children (J) and there was no purpose of election campaign.

2) The lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 5,00,000) 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. Article 60 of the Act on Entrusted Elections including Public Organizations, Etc. (hereinafter “Entrusted Election Act”) ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for each appeal by the defendant and prosecutor, prior to the judgment on the grounds for the appeal by the defendant and prosecutor, the benefits received by the person who committed the crime under Article 58 or 59 shall be confiscated.

Provided, That if it is impossible to confiscate all or part of it, the value thereof shall be collected additionally.

As stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant provided H with KRW 300,00 and KRW 50,000,000 to H, but was returned to H, and thus, the Defendant received 350,000 won due to the instant crime.

not be deemed to be the case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 60 of the Trust Election Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, in applying Article 60 of the Trust Election Act to the collection of KRW 350,000 from the defendant.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of the above facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following are examined.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted in the lower court as to this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court accordingly.