The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

B Fines 2,00,000,000, Defendant C shall be punished.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The court below found Defendants B guilty of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to each advance election campaign, and violation of the Public Official Election Act due to each contribution-restricted act, and sentenced Defendant C to a fine of KRW 2.5 million, and sentenced Defendant C to a fine of KRW 1 million. Accordingly, the Defendants appealed from each of the grounds for sentencing on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to prior election campaign and unfair sentencing.

B. On the fourth trial date prior to the remanding, the prosecutor kept the first instance court’s order that “the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the Act on the Election of Public Officials due to the Restriction on Contribution” related to the provision of food among the facts charged in the instant case, and applied the first charge to add “the violation of the Act on the Election of Public Officials due to the Encouragement of Sales and Understanding” as well as “Article 230(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act” under the applicable law, and permitted the second instance court’s ex officio, reversed the part of the judgment of the court below as to the provision of food, and acquitted all of the ancillary and ancillary charges, and acquitted the Defendants of all the facts and misapprehensions of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Election of Public Officials due to the Prior Election of the Defendants, and sentenced Defendant B to a fine of KRW 1.5 million, Defendant C, each of whom is punished by a fine of KRW 8 million.

(c)

On the grounds of the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the portion of innocence, the prosecutor held that the Defendants were guilty on the grounds of misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the portion of conviction. The Supreme Court accepted part of the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, and violated the Public Official Election Act due to encouragement of understanding and understanding, which is the ancillary charge related to the provision of food that the court rendered a not guilty