Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty due to a failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court stated in its reasoning the following circumstances: (a) particularly the part claiming that the prosecutor supports or oppose a specific candidate is indicated in the latter part of the instant report, and the subject of the latter part is as stated in its conclusion, “It is desirable to postpone the announcement of the C’s position concerning the C’s plan to attract the general public because the announcement of the C’s position may affect the election,” and (b) in the process of logical development that is different from the above subject.

In full view of the opinion and the fact that the statement of opinion about the situation at which “in the event that no host plan is available” was written, the part against the support of the instant situation asserted by the prosecutor cannot be deemed as the content supporting the E candidate or opposing the candidate for the J party, and thus, acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the part against the support of the instant situation asserted by the prosecutor cannot be deemed as the content supporting the E candidate or opposing the candidate for the J party.

B. The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is justified in light of ① the purpose of the record, ② the position of the defendant on the issue of attracting C hospital, etc. at the time of distributing the above explanatory note, ③ the circumstance of distributing the above explanatory note, ④ the overall context and specific contents of the above explanatory note, etc., and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.