Since the Defendant did not recognize that the content was false at the time of distributing it to the media, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, even though there was no intention to publish false facts.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

The summary of the facts charged as to the assertion of mistake of facts was the head of the public relations team of the D election campaign, but around 08:25 on May 24, 2014 and around 08:36 on the same day, the Defendant proposed that the Defendant, who was the candidate of the C head of the C/Gun, would guarantee the preference of the candidates, such as various rights and positions, on the condition that he/she is able to simplify the candidates, by using the computer kept in his/her book inside the 4th election office of the candidate of the 4th unit of the building in southnam EM in the former EM at around the end of March 2014, and sent the report materials to the reporter of the 23 press organizations, such as Gwangju, Jeonnam, and Jeonnam, to the end of March 2014.

However, in fact, the F candidate did not have attempted to purchase G candidates, but did not have been accused against the prosecution by the F candidate.

As such, the Defendant published false facts to the disadvantage of the F, so that the F, who is a candidate, could not be elected.

Since the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act is a crime of publishing false facts, an actor should be aware that the facts are false, and the existence or absence of such subjective perception is difficult to know or prove it outside due to its nature, it shall be determined by taking full account of various objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s educational background, career, social status, period of publication, time of publication, and expected ripple effect, based on the contents and existence of the facts announced, the existence and content of the materials, the source and awareness of the facts revealed by the Defendant.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on July 22, 2005