The judgment of the court below (including the portion not guilty) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles also regards the act related to light-line election as “an election”. According to the evidence submitted, it is recognized that the Defendant was aware that he/she provided transportation convenience on behalf of the D party.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the violation of the restriction on contribution by a third party among the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the amount of KRW 500,000,000) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant planned to prepare vehicles in order to allow local residents to participate in the competition of candidates for the D party presidential election (hereinafter “election within the instant party”) with respect to the 19th presidential election.

Accordingly, on April 2, 2017, from around 09:40 to 16:58 of the same day, the Defendant operated the F Real Estate Brokerage Office in Seoul, “F Real Estate,” in front of the “F Real Estate Office” in Seoul, and the said F, on eight occasions, operated the said F in the same day, and rocketing car (H) owned by the said F, 17 persons, such as I, were replaced by 17 persons as indicated in the attached list of crimes, to K in Seoul J, which is a place where the competition voting of the D party is held, and tried again to go back to the vicinity of each individual’s residence after completing voting.

As a result, the Defendant made contributions to 17 persons, such as I, for the 19th presidential election, including the provision of a total of 102,00 won (Wang taxi fee, 6,000 won per person) to 17 persons, including I, for the 19th presidential election.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant provided profits with the intent of helping many electors participate in the competition of the instant party, or provided profits in mind only with the competition within the D party rather than the presidential election.