A. In fact-finding, the defendant did not have a mind to slander a specific candidate, and distributed a leaflet in the mind that he did not want to inform a half-value registration policy, and did not intend to have an intention to influence the election, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant carried out an illegal election campaign.

① In the former part of this case, the ballot paper model was set up at the lower part of the front title, and the lower part of the ballot paper is written in the lower part of the ballot paper, with the phrase “the presidential candidate who makes a half-value registration statement” and “the presidential candidate who will practice a half-value registration fee” written in the right column, and the lower part of the ballot paper contains the word “the refusal by the NN” under the FE mark, and the phrase “the refusal by the NN” is written in the latter part, and the word “F candidates” and “H and transit consent,” such as “the refusal by the FE,” “the proposing party”, “the proposing party”, “H and transit consent,” thereby opposing the policy for anti-value registration fee.

② The E candidate, who appears to be the candidate for support on the front page of the instant case, visited D University at the time and place of the visit.

③ Articles 255(2)5 and 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act do not require “the purpose of slandering a specific candidate”.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the charged facts of this case does not err by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the defendant's ground of appeal on this part cannot be accepted.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is unspecified twice.