The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and A among them shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and Defendant A for a fine of 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendants (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant B, in the list of offenses listed in the attached Table No. 2Y, DA, DB, D, D, D, E, and B (hereinafter “BY, etc.”) were not intended to instruct the delivery of apologys, and there is no difference between the company and the company in fact.

2) Defendant A was aware that he was a nominal gift and delivered with a apology, and Defendant B was unaware that he was engaged in an illegal election campaign.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (defendant B: imprisonment of six months; imprisonment of two years; a community service order of 120 hours; Defendant A: fine of ten million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor Defendant A delivers the apology upon Defendant B’s request, and the receiver “the sender of the apology will make the phone call later.”

Since the crime of this case was committed in collusion with Defendant B, etc., it is recognized as a joint principal offender.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

The prosecutor applied for changes in the bill of amendment to the indictment to the defendants in the trial of the court, and since this court permitted it, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants can no longer be maintained.

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles still are subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to whether Defendant B delivered the apology to BY, etc., the lower court’s judgment that ordered Defendant B B to deliver the apology to BY, etc., and that Defendant A, etc. delivered the apology to BY, etc. is justifiable.

One Part BB was present as a witness at the trial, and was aware that the BB was subject to death, but it was sent from the agricultural cooperative to the name-saving gift, and related to the death from the defendant B.