The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground of appeal, the Defendant elected the officers at a meeting of members other than a general meeting, and can be the elector for an election for executive officers, not all the union members. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on an act of donation to all the union members, even though the act of donation to non-representative members is not restricted, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding an act of donation restricted by the Agricultural Cooperative Act.

The argument is asserted.

However, the Agricultural Cooperative Act can have a representative meeting in lieu of the general meeting in section 42.

In addition, Article 50-2 (1) provides that candidates for an election of executive officers shall not be allowed to make contributions to members or their family members, and the articles of association of the E Agriculture Cooperatives shall also have a representative meeting in lieu of a general meeting under Article 46, and Article 98-3 (1) prohibits candidates for an election of executive officers from making contributions to members or their family members, and prohibits all members from making contributions without limiting to those members who are representatives or become electors.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the act of donation to members who are not representatives by considering the relevant statutes and the articles of association regulations was not erroneous as alleged in the grounds

2. As to the second ground of appeal, the Defendant did not know that the Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju District District, which sent to the Plaintiff, was delivered in the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was also sent to the E Agriculture Cooperative, not by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant and the other party did not constitute a contribution act since they did not have awareness of the contribution act.

The argument is asserted.

In light of the evidence, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju High Military Court was delivered to its members in its name.

The judgment of the court below is justified.