A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the point of publication distorted as a result of the public opinion poll), and Defendant 1: (a) on January 4, 2016, the preliminary candidate, who first conducted at the KBS public opinion poll on February 1, 2016, did not make a non-explication declaration on February 1, 2016; (b) thus, he/she

E It can be deemed that the preliminary candidate actually made the first part.

On February 3, 2016, J&P PP Shep (S& . Psarch) public opinion polls conducted on January 1, 201.

Therefore, the text message that E made one level in various public opinion polls is not false.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the above text messages as false. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine was based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated in its reasoning. In full view of the circumstances in its reasoning, the lower court practically occupied the first class in various public opinion polls conducted at the time E.

It can not be seen that the defendant published the results of the public opinion poll by distorted them.

amply recognized

The decision was determined.

2) In full view of each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. A judgment on unjust assertion of sentencing by the prosecutor and the defendant is reasonable because the defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished twice or more due to the violation of the Public Official Election Act, and the number of times he/she transmitted text messages is also considerable to the extent that it infringes on the fairness of election.