All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) The recording of a conversation between Defendant A and C is unlawful by a third party who did not participate in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the admissibility of evidence of the recording file on August 16, 2018 between Defendant A and C.

C The files recorded in the F viewing Market room and its accessory room on August 16, 2018 (Supplementary Evidence Nos. 4; hereinafter “instant recording file”) are included in the conversation and telephone conversations between others unrelated to C in the front part of the conversation with Defendant A, and thus, are inadmissible as evidence collected unlawfully.

The court below is unlawful to recognize admissibility of the recording file of this case as evidence of conviction.

(2) There is no erroneous fact that C and Defendant B received KRW 12 million with respect to public offering and receipt of money.

Furthermore, Defendant A had no intent to pay money to D, E, and Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as “D, etc.”) when they jointly refer to those third parties, and Defendant A offered money to D, etc. regardless of Defendant A, merely because C voluntarily offered money to D, etc., there was no public offering with C.

Nevertheless, as D, E, and C were not recognized as having contributed to election campaign by Defendant A and the personnel administration was refused, they were ambiguously gathered by each other in order to let Defendant A leave the market office, and provided false information and statements on a planned basis, and the contents of the statement are inconsistent with the empirical rule or inconsistent with other evidence, so their statements are not credibility.

The judgment of the court below which recognized that Defendant A paid money in collusion with Defendant C, etc. by making their statements as the main evidence, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

(3) Even if it is recognized that Defendant A paid money in collusion with Defendant A, etc. even if it is true that Defendant A paid money in collusion with Defendant C, Defendant A violated the Election Act by purchasing a person in charge of accounting of Defendant A’s election campaign.