1. Examining the reasoning of the Defendant’s appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of statements on the grounds of each appeal filed after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal) in accordance with the evidence and relevant legal principles (see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do4931, Oct. 29, 2009; 2015Do9847, Nov. 26, 2015; 2017Do3673, May 11, 2017), the lower court is justifiable to have convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged (excluding non-crimes) against the Defendant on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to door-to-door visits and publication of false facts.

2. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the prosecutor on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the violation of the Act on Election of Public Offices due to the publication of false facts as of April 11, 2016 among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty.

Examining the record, there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the lower judgment, but the lower court’s above conclusion is justifiable.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Public Official Election Act by publishing false facts, thereby affecting the conclusion

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed against the entire judgment of the court below, but the guilty part does not indicate the grounds of objection against the petition of appeal or the reasoning of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.