A. Defendant (1) is merely a recommendation to participate in voting without supporting, recommending, or opposing a specific candidate, and thus, it does not have been posted for election campaign. ② A prior consultation with the election commission regarding the term of the banner was held with the election commission in advance, and no point was pointed out during the building period. Therefore, there was no intention or negligence on the violation of the Election Act.

B. The sentence of the court below (the fine of 800,000 won) declared by the public prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion, “election campaign” under Article 58(1) of the Public Official Election Act refers to an active and planned act that is necessary for and favorable for the election or winning or defeating of a specific candidate, and that can be objectively recognized as an objective purpose of promoting an election or defeat in the election. As such, in determining whether an act constitutes an election campaign, it should be determined by comprehensively observing not only the name of the act, but also the form of the act, i.e., when, at the time, place, method, etc. of the act is performed, by comprehensively observing the relevant act as well as the name of the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do5344 Decided October 27, 2011, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, namely, the Defendant’s instant banner stated as “B party’s lifelong learning and educational lighting together with essential voting for the purpose of life-long learning,” and “B party’s mine name with abundant luminous jobs.” Of the foregoing phrase, “lifelong learning” is mainly yellow; “all-school life” is distinguishable from other parts of the banner indicated in the yellow color; “all-school life” is distinguishable from other parts of the banner; “the election campaign bulletin for the candidate” is created.