The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that each act of posting each of the notices in this case constitutes an election campaign is erroneous by mistake of facts and by misapprehending legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a private school B High School Teachers.

No teacher of a private school shall conduct an election campaign except where a preliminary candidate is his spouse, or his lineal ascendants or descendants.

Nevertheless, on April 9, 2016, the Defendant shared an article “D” with the Internet C’s own account and “the mother of our society’s garbage species”.

E. A notice of F’s instructions “in transit through the National Assembly-based society” was given in the same way as indicated in the list of crimes in the lower judgment, including election campaigns that oppose a specific candidate, and election campaigns were carried out 16 times from March 30, 2016 to April 10, 2016.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s act of posting each of the instant notices to C constitutes an election campaign as objectively acknowledged by the intention of promoting the election or defeat of a specific candidate in the 20th National Assembly member election in light of the general elector’s perspective.

① The Defendant posted each of the instant notices to C 16 times between the 20th election day and the remaining 13th to 3th day.

(2) The defendant posted a notice to his own C.