A. In light of the fact that the Defendant divided the name cards by mistake of fact into the entrance of the F parking lot and the entrance of the parking lot, and the above parking lot was contributed to the outside, etc., the Defendant’s division of name cards cannot be viewed as a religious facility. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the fact that the Defendant issued name cards at a religious facility.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 400,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant did not divide name cards against vehicles at the entrance of the F parking lot into the entrance of the F parking lot, but divided the name cards against those who entered the F parking lot after completing parking under the stairs that the Ngrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgr.

B. The fact that the defendant has no criminal history in determining the allegation of unfair sentencing, and that it is difficult to deem that the defendant had a substantial impact on the election because the number of statements distributed by the defendant was not much higher, etc. are favorable to the defendant.