All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

A. Article 22(2)1 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act prohibits a member of the community credit cooperatives or his/her family members from offering entertainment, etc. to such member of the community credit cooperatives, and Article 85(3) of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act provides penal provisions on such violation to promote a fair election by strengthening the restrictions on election campaigns for the officers of community credit cooperatives. Therefore, the legitimacy of the legislative purpose is recognized.

In addition, in the case of indirect elections in which a council of representatives appoints a community credit cooperative executive officer, a representative is appointed from among the members, so it may affect an election by exercising influence on representatives through members or their family members for the purpose of getting him/herself or a specific person elected or not elected as an executive of a credit cooperative, and prohibiting the act of offering entertainment, etc. to members or their family members who may have an influence on an election can contribute to the achievement of the above legislative purpose. Therefore, the appropriateness of such means is recognized.

Furthermore, Article 22(2)1 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act prohibits only the act “for the purpose of getting himself/herself or a certain person to be elected or not to be elected as an executive of a credit cooperative” among the act of offering entertainment, etc. to members or their families. As such, the minimum degree of damage is recognized.

In addition, the freedom of election campaign of a candidate, the freedom of general behavior of members, and the freedom of expression of a candidate or a member may be restricted by the prohibition of offering entertainment to members or their family members. However, the public interest, which is the fairness of election for executive officers, is much more likely to be achieved by restricting the act of offering entertainment compared to the degree of such restriction, is recognized, and therefore the balance of legal interests is also recognized.

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that Article 22(2)1 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act does not go against the principle of excessive prohibition.