A. Among the articles that were taken by the Defendant in relation to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false information, it shall be deemed that C personally subsidized school expenses to B/Gun E organizations at the time when C/Gun was employed as the head of B/Gun, and it shall not be deemed that C provided official subsidies to B/Gun E organizations in terms of budget.

However, since C does not personally subsidize the field expenses, but provided with the budget with the official support, the contents are false facts.

In addition, in the instant case, C’s referenced about F’s exemption from delinquent taxes for F at the time of his/her holding office as the head of the Gun, was that C had engaged in the act of abusing his/her authority as the head of the Gun or unfairly violating his/her duties so that F would no longer pay delinquent taxes. The F’s disposal of deficits on F’s delinquent taxes was lawful, and C did not unfairly intervene in the manner of abusing his/her authority as the head of the Gun or violating his/her duties. Therefore, the above content

Nevertheless, among the contents of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that it cannot be viewed as false facts under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act, since it is difficult to view that C provided personal visit expenses to B/Gun E organizations at the time of the head of B/Gun of this case, and it cannot be viewed as false facts under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act, since it is difficult to view that C provided personal visit expenses, and since there are circumstances to suspect that C unfairly participated in the write-off on the write-off of the F’s delinquent tax amount at the time of the head of B/Gun of this case, it cannot be viewed as false facts under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act.