Of the defendants B, the part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

The sentence for B shall be suspended.

Defendant

A.

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles was not recruited by Defendant A to the point of violating the Public Official Election Act with Defendant A, and ② an adviser on March 24, 2014 and April 14, 2014 in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the adviser of this case”) is not prepared and executed for the purpose of making E unable to be elected in the D military election, which was held on June 4, 2014, in the form of traffic-oriented hand, and ③ the purpose was to provide accurate information to the voters of the above election, and thus, Defendant A has no criminal intent or the illegality of the facts charged is dismissed. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles regarding Defendant B’s assertion that ① did not report the instant advisory adviser to the J (hereinafter “Examination”) for the purpose of preventing Defendant B from being elected in the D military election, and ②, at the bottom of the instant advisory adviser, Defendant B stated that “the external plaintiff may be different from the direction of editing this paper.” From July 2013 to February 2013, Defendant A provided the Plaintiff of the instant advisory adviser at a twice per month, giving the instant advisory adviser at a newspaper was not recruited as ordinary days, and publication of the instant advisory adviser in the newspaper was in violation of A and the Public Official Election Act. ③ In addition, the facts charged in the instant case are dismissed pursuant to the proviso of Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 1 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 500,000) on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles is as follows: ① Defendant A transferred it from L, M, N, andO.