A. Legal principles 1) It is true that the Defendant jointly distributed the J-Examination on March 3, 2016 in the same manner as the facts charged, with respect to the violation of the Public Official Election Act relating to the distribution of newspapers by a method other than ordinary methods, but it does not constitute a case where the examination was distributed in a way other than ordinary methods as prohibited under Article 95 of the Public Official Election Act.

2) As to the violation of the Act on the Election of Public Officials in Relation to the Illegal Election Campaign and Preliminary Election of the Representatives of the National Sports Organizations, the defendant ordered X to attend the ceremony of the P branch of the P branch of the P branch of the P branch of the P branch of the P branch of the P branch of the P branch of the P branch of the group, and made the above members attend the above ceremony and made a statement in the above ceremony as stated in the facts charged. However, this does not constitute an election campaign and a prior election campaign prohibited under Articles 60(1) and 254(2) of the Public Official Election Act, and in particular, the defendant's speaking at the above ceremony is merely an "ordinary courtesy act" if the defendant made the members of the P branch of the P branch of the P branch of the P branch of the organization participate in the ceremony of the P branch of the P branch of the P branch and tried to participate in the ceremony of the P branch of the P branch after defining the same contents as the facts charged, it cannot be deemed that the above act did not affect the election campaign by the defendant.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. Violation of public official election law relating to the distribution of newspapers by means other than normal methods