1. The term "election campaign" under the Election of Public Officials Act means an act that can be objectively recognized for the purpose of promoting the election or defeat of a specific candidate in a specific election.

The above purpose was intended

In order to prosecute, there is an objective circumstance where the elector can clearly recognize that he/she is an act of promoting the success in a specific election only because he/she can simply conceal the relationship with the election or that he/she was a motive for the matter related to the election.

Specifically, a determination of whether an act constitutes an election campaign ought to be made by comprehensively observing not only the name of the act, but also the timing, place, method, etc. of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11812, Aug. 26, 2016). The main sentence of Article 59 of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 14556, Feb. 8, 2017) prohibiting advance election campaigns and Article 254(2) of the Public Official Election Act do not infringe on the freedom of political expression, such as election campaigns (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do3468, Oct. 11, 207; 201Hun-Ba163, Apr. 30, 2015; 201Hun-Ba253, Jun. 30, 2016; see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2014Hun-Ba253, Feb. 15, 2016).

The above Defendants were found guilty.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable in light of the aforementioned legal principles. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the aforementioned legal principles are as follows: (a) exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules; (b) criminal intent; (c) joint principal offender; (d) the principle of infinite and unfavorable treatment