1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of all of the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to publication of false facts in the instant facts charged (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) against Defendant A, act of contribution related to the event of Liber Day, and provision of benefit related to election campaign. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of “career” under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act, “public announcement of false facts”, “person who

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

2. According to the records on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, Defendant B appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with the grounds of appeal, but withdrawn the grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the third trial date of the lower court.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Therefore, in this case where a fine is imposed against