All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) on June 2, 2014, the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false facts for the election purpose as of June 2, 2014 (1) unless it is proved that the court (hereinafter “J”) selected K, it cannot be deemed as false facts even if the Defendant has written the expression “K”, and (2) the Defendant used the word of banner received from J as much as possible, and the expression in question is merely an unrelated type with the main contents of the news report, there was no intention to spread false facts to the Defendant, and (3) even though whether the expression of banner selected by J does not correspond to the candidate’s status, career, etc. under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act, the court below convicted the Defendant of this part. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of facts

B) The part on the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false facts for the purpose of abortion ① as to the facts related to a specific act in a specific period and place, so long as the time, spatial act, content, and method of the alleged facts are relatively specified, the prosecutor must actively prove the absence of reasonable doubt. It is difficult to deem that the prosecutor's proof of the fact that the publication of this case is false is beyond reasonable doubt. ② Even if the contents of the Defendant's statement are not specified in a specific period and space, it is hard to see that the prosecutor's statement of this case is not specified in a reasonable doubt. ② Even if the contents of the statement of this case constitute facts that are not specified in a specific period and space, there were media reports, etc. concerning the suspicion raised by the Defendant, and thus there was considerable reason to believe that the Defendant is true, the court below convicted the Defendant of this part,