A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

The prosecutor's remaining appeal is dismissed.

A. Legal principles

Although the Defendant posted the same article as the statement Nos. 1 and 7 of the annexed crime list Nos. 1 and 7 of the lower judgment on the Facebook constitutes an election campaign, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the above act did not constitute an election campaign.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The court below's postponement of the sentence of a fine of one million won to the defendant is unfair because the amount of the judgment is too unhued.

2. Determination

A. Part No. 1 of the annexed list of crimes in the judgment below

The court below duly adopted and examined the evidence and records, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and records, i.e., (1) the function of "sharement" of Facebook is used simply for storage of information due to personal needs; (2) the defendant shared the newspaper articles as it is; and (3) the defendant stated that the defendant reported another newspaper articles from the Facebook to the other teacher's Facebook and shared them with his opinion; (4) it can be viewed that the contents of the newspaper articles can be viewed as centering on interest of emphasizing the launch of election banner; and (5) it is difficult to find any direct relation between the defendant and the non-indicted 2 before and after the posting of the above article; and (5) it is hard to view that the defendant's act of sharing the newspaper articles or its dissenting opinion constitutes an objective act of sharing the newspaper articles or its dissenting opinion for 20 days after the posting of the article.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. Attached No. 7 of the crime sight table of the judgment below

This part of the notice was written by Nonindicted 3, a person who was Nonindicted 3, in co-ownership of a letter written by linking the interview articles of Nonindicted 1 (Sicker: Nonindicted 1) to the Defendant, and the Defendant stated in the investigative agency to the effect that it would be co-owned in the last resort to read, and that he did not add his opinion in addition to the article originally published in the process of the above co-ownership.

However, the court below duly adopted and examined circumstances, namely, ① the title of an interview article linked to this article is “new idea of economic co-ownership,” and its main contents include “an idea of new political party’s economic policy has already been advanced and it is nothing more than that of the past policies,” and it is obvious that the article’s critical contents on the new one are included in the article. ② The reason why the article is linked to the above article is that anyone 3 will help understand the core co-ownership of the democratic party’s election campaign. It is hard to see that the defendant’s act of sharing the article from the point of view of 60 days to 20 days to 4 days to 6 days to 6 days to 20 days to 20 days to 20 days to 4 days to 20 days to 20 days to 20 days to 20 days to 6 days to 7 days to 20 days to 6 days to 4 days to 20 days to 20 days to 20 days to 7 days to 2.

3. Conclusion

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act of April 13, 2016 (No. 7 attached to the judgment of the court below) is with merit, and each of the above and the remaining crimes which the court below found guilty should be sentenced to one punishment on the grounds that they are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below reversed the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below as to the guilty portion and the violation of the Public Official Election Act of April 13, 2016 under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor’s argument of unfair sentencing as to the guilty portion among the facts charged in the instant case. The prosecutor’s remaining appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of

Each public official election law Article 255(1)2, Article 60(1)5, and Article 53(1)7 of the Public Official Election Act (However, each fine is chosen, including the violation of the Public Official Election Act No. 2, No. 3 and the violation of the Public Official Election Act No. 4, and No. 5);

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Public Official Election Act of April 13, 2016, with the largest penalty)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

On the other hand, it appears that the defendant had no awareness of the fact that the defendant's act was against a certain part of his own act, the use of "shared function" in the past is an election campaign, and it appears that the defendant did not have a awareness of such fact, and that the defendant has contributed to high school teachers for a long time as he did not have any history of punishment, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

Other circumstances shown in the records and pleadings of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and sentencing of similar cases, shall be determined in full view of the following circumstances.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Sung-ju (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)