The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in this case, Defendant A1 is a co-principal (Article 1 of the original facts charged) with Defendant B, and Defendant C’s co-principal (Article 2 of the original facts charged) with Defendant C. As to Defendant B and C’s co-principal (Article 2 of the original facts charged), Defendant B and C’s act of giving cash of KRW 1 million to Defendant B and C was based on an individual decision-making of the above Defendants, and there was no fact that Defendant A conspired with the above Defendants.

B) Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A sent text messages as described in this part of the facts charged, as to Defendant A’s sole criminal conduct (Article 3 of the original facts charged). However, this is the letter that Defendant A retired while serving as the former duties of HFF and then sent personnel. As such, the above Defendant A’s act does not constitute an election campaign. 2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (Article 8 and 2 of the suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, there was a fact that Defendant B gave KRW 1 million in cash to Defendant A with respect to the joint criminal conduct (the original criminal conduct) with Defendant A among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts. However, this is an individual amount of money in order to assist I who was suffering from economic difficulties regardless of Defendant A’s election regardless of the head of the association, and there was no conspiracy with Defendant A with respect to giving money to I. (2) The sentence against Defendant B of the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

C. Of the facts charged in the instant case, as to Defendant C’s joint criminal conduct (Article 2 of the original facts charged) with Defendant A, Defendant C acknowledged the fact that Defendant C provided a gift gift set to Defendant A for the purpose of aiding and abetting Defendant A’s election, but this is only the sole criminal conduct of Defendant C, and there was no conspiracy with Defendant A.

In addition, it is not related to the defendant A's election because the defendant C gave a high gift gift tax to I due to the relationship between I and I.

2. The original judgment and the court below's decision.