The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The defendant above.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Election of Public Officials due to violation of the Act on Contribution-restricted Act, violation of the Act on Election of Public Officials due to the prior election campaign, and violation of the Act on Election of Public Officials due to the distribution of names other than candidates, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 3 million, and appealed for the reason that only the prosecutor appealed for an unfair sentencing.

B. At the third trial date prior to the remanding, the prosecutor, while maintaining in his first place the “violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the Restriction on Contribution Act” related to the provision of food among the facts charged in the instant case, filed an application for amendments to the indictment with the effect that “Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the inducement of revenues and interests” was added to “Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the inducement of revenues and interests” and “Article 230(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act” as the applicable law, and the judgment of the re-transmission transmission party permitted this, followed by the above modification of the indictment, the court below reversed the part of the judgment of the court below as to food, and acquitted all the ancillary and ancillary facts as to the provision of food, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of 1.5 million won, while maintaining

(c)

A prosecutor filed a final appeal against the judgment of the court prior to remand on the grounds of misapprehending the legal principles as to the acquittal portion. The Supreme Court accepted part of the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles and rendered a not-guilty verdict by the trial court, and the Supreme Court erred by misapprehending the meaning of “ elector” under Article 230(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act and the legal principles as to “the purpose of election” under Article 230(1)1 of the same Act, which are the ancillary facts charged in relation to the provision of food, and thereby, reversed the judgment. This part of the judgment is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.