The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,00 and by a fine of KRW 500,00.

1. The prosecutor's grounds for appeal [the part not guilty and the decision of the court below] The defendant Eul's offering of money and goods to H constitutes an act of offering money and goods in relation to the election of the president of the association with the intent to attract the president in favor of the president of the association in accordance with the prior public invitation with the defendant Eul. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts of not guilty of this part of the charges and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment (misunderstanding of facts). Accordingly, the court below was sentenced to minor punishment (the fine of KRW 80,00,000 and the fine of KRW 300,000) compared to the nature of the crime against the defendants (the judgment of the court below is unfair).

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part is that Defendant A was elected in the election of the head of the E Urban Environment Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “instant partnership”) implemented on April 24, 2015, and Defendant B was a person who was a packing member of the said association, and Defendant B provided five members of the instant association to the effect that “A would have been elected in the election of the head of the association” around 17:00 on March 29, 2015, Defendant B offered five members of the instant association to the effect that “A would have been elected in the election of the head of the association.” The Defendants conspired to offer money and valuables in relation to the election of the executives of the association.

B. The lower court determined that in the instant case where Defendant B’s offer of this case is not cash, but merely five members of the Yellow Cheongwon, the lower court provided H with the election of the head of the association where Defendant B was planned to leave, solely on the basis of the circumstantial facts, such as the relationship between the Defendants and the circumstances surrounding Defendant B’s arrival at the time of Defendant B, etc.

For the reason that it cannot be readily determined, innocence was pronounced.

(c)

1) Determination of the party’s deliberation 1) Articles 84-2 subparag. 3 and 21(4)1 of the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (wholly amended by Act No. 13508, Sept. 1, 2015), which are the penal provisions of this case, were newly established while partially amending the Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012.