1. Examining the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the transmission of each letter messages in the judgment of the defendant was conducted under the purpose and intent of influencing the election, and it cannot be deemed that it was merely an ordinary and ordinary act, and that it does not constitute a ground for exclusion from liability because it is difficult to see that the defendant was not a crime, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged.

2. Article 108(4) of the Public Official Election Act provides, “When any person publishes or reports the results of a public opinion poll on election, the name of client, institution or organization of the public opinion poll, method of selecting those polled, size of samples, areas polled, date and time, method of survey, error rate of samples, response rate, contents of questions, etc. shall be disclosed or reported together; and an institution or organization conducting a public opinion poll on election shall keep all those materials related to the public opinion poll, including necessary materials to evidence credibility and objectivity of survey, such as research plans, selection of those polled, sampling, sampling, preparation of questionnaire, results analysis, etc., and collected answer sheets and results analysis materials, etc., for the purpose of maintaining objectivity and reliability thereof until six months after the election day.” Thus, the above provision aims at maintaining objectivity and credibility in disclosing the results of a public opinion poll related to the election, and there is no restriction on the subject of such opinion poll by providing that “any person who publishes or reports the results of a public opinion poll on election.” Therefore, it is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above provision.

3. According to the provisions of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where the defendant has been sentenced to a minor fine, the grounds that the sentencing of the sentence is unfair cannot

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)