Defendant

Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant paid money to K was unfolded due to K's request even if K's advertisement and scambling request was made, and there was a situation in which he was unreshed without good faith to assist the work of the alumni, it would be said that he would use the money or miscellaneous expenses as part of the above unclaimed and good faith behavior.

The defendant only made a talk to the extent that there is a wrong perception about the candidate who was known to K, and made other talks, such as talks, advertisements, etc. related to the alumni meeting and the axis, and made it clear that the defendant's intention to personally want even if he did not contain an advertisement because he concerns about interference with the request for advertisement.

The defendant did not consider the preparation of an article that is favorable to a specific candidate in relation to the election, in which he did not help the ships difficult in accordance with personal friendly relations.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the crime of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles since the defendant did not pay money.

The punishment (one million won of fine, etc.) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail in the third through six pages of the judgment, on the same ground as this part of the grounds for appeal. Examining the lower court’s aforementioned judgment closely compared with the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court’s aforementioned judgment is justifiable.