A. Defendant A did not recognize the fact that Defendant C distributed the name cards at the time of the instant act of distributing the name cards, and Defendant D also knew of the fact that there was Defendant C at the time of arrival in the K entrance area, which is the site of the instant case, and even if 3,40 minutes after the arrival, Defendant C was aware of the Defendant C’s act of distributing the name cards.

Nevertheless, as to Defendant C’s act of distributing Defendant A’s name cards in violation of the human restriction, there was a conspiracy of conspiracy among the Defendants in order or impliedly.

The judgment of the court below contains an error of mistake of facts.

B. Article 255(2)5 of the Election of Public Officials Act provides that a person who distributes or makes another person distribute documents, etc. in violation of Article 93(1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials in the Part of the Crimes of Unlawful Election Campaign by misunderstanding the legal doctrine (defendants 1) by unlawful means that violates human restriction shall be punished concurrently by a person who actually distributes and who causes another person to engage in the actual distribution.

This includes "a person who has distributed" as an independent organization, and there is no room to apply the legal principles of the joint principal offender to the crime of illegal election campaign under Article 255 (2) 5 of the Public Official Election Act.

Nevertheless, there is a common relation between the Defendants with regard to the distribution of name cards by Defendant C in violation of the human restriction.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The phrase “in the subway station premises” under the proviso of Article 60-3 subparag. 1(2) of the former Act on the Election of Public Officials (amended by Act No. 14556, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Election of Public Officials”) on the part of the illegal election campaign for which the name cards were distributed within the subway station shall be interpreted as the most favorable direction for the subject of application, since the scope of the scope of the subway station premises is not clear. Thus, the subway station premises are only the inside of the opening space.