A. The lower court, on March 28, 2016, determined that the Defendants, in the 20th National Assembly member election, did not make a statement to the effect that “The Defendants, who visited the G constituency and the I constituency as a candidate for the H political party candidate, were holding a press conference (hereinafter “the instant press conference”) under the title of “J University’s University and University at K (hereinafter “JJ”)” and that “The Defendants were aware of the fact that the plan to move to K would have been established and completed consultation with the professors belonging to the hospital finance committee in charge of overall affairs and that the previous preparation was completed,” and that the Defendants did not make a statement to the effect that “the Defendants were aware of the fact that the Defendants were holding a conference at the time of questioning and questioning,” and that the Defendants did not make a statement to the effect that the Defendants were aware of the fact that there was no prior consultation with the hospital and the JJ in the process of responding to questions.”

However, the Defendants’ act does not constitute a violation of the Public Official Election Act by publishing false facts for the following reasons, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected

The Defendant’s statement of this case is not the purport that the Defendants directly confirmed the plan to move to JJJ or K, but it was confirmed through a third party. In fact, the Defendants participated in the business to move to JJJ and K.

R et al. confirmed the transfer plan through J-related persons, etc. and notified them to Defendant A, and Defendant B also received the transfer plan through Defendant A.