1. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court maintained the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the facts charged of the instant case (excluding the guilty portion) on the grounds stated in its reasoning, deeming that there was no proof of crime.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of election campaign methods under Article 66 of the Act on Commissioned Elections by Public Organizations

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant’s grounds for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of the instant facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal) on

In doing so, the court did not err by misapprehending the meaning of a prior election campaign prohibited by the Act on Election of Public Organizations, Etc., or by misapprehending the legal principles on door-to-door visits and the meaning of "defense" without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.