A fine of KRW 5,00,00 (O million) for a crime No. 1 in the judgment of the defendant is six months of imprisonment, and a crime No. 2 in the judgment of the court.

(2) The Defendant, as seen above, submitted to the Secretariat of the Election Management Commission on May 25, 2016, the following: (a) the Defendant printed out three copies of the positive device photograph taken at the time of election, despite the Defendant’s use of the positive image of I through 4kw and J 2.1kw as set forth in Article 1-2(b); (b) the Defendant printed out three copies of the positive device photograph taken at the time of election campaign; and (b) on the above photograph, read “I: K8kw Skw amp amp : J. : K8kw amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp.”

Accordingly, the defendant submitted false data on the demand of the Election Management Commission to report or submit data.

(d)

On April 25, 2016, the I Election Management Committee requested the submission of data to verify the type of paper used in the election campaign bulletin among the estimates prepared by the defendant in relation to the claim for the preservation of the E election expenses on April 25, 2016.

The Defendant used the “150g Republic of Korea (788*1092)” in the election bulletin with respect to the foregoing request for the submission of data by the election commission, and submitted a revised estimate stating that the Defendant used the “250g Republic of Korea (788*1092)” in the election bulletin, and submitted it to the office of the secretariat of the Committee for the Management of the I Election Commission around April 2016.

However, in fact, the paper used by the defendant for the above election campaign bulletin and order was domestically produced.

Accordingly, the defendant submitted false data on the demand of the Election Management Commission to report or submit data.

2. The Defendant did not have taken photographs of the candidate as referred to in Article 1-1-A, and even if he used the maximum output 2.1kw and 4kw confirmation devices as referred to in Article 1-2(b), he submitted a false quotation indicating the amount equivalent to KRW 13,390,00 in the preservation cost related to the output of the positive device, and KRW 13,738,00 in the sum of the preservation cost related to the output of the positive device, and submitted it to G to G, as seen above, he would have paid KRW 13,738,00 in the expense of the photographing and the confirmation device.