1. The court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant carried out an election campaign by wearing a bachelor's cap and bachelor's degree with the same shape and color as that of his spouse, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 3, an election campaign worker, based on their employment evidence, and determined that such act of the defendant is only an election campaign prohibited under the main sentence of Article 105(2) of the Public Official Election Act, and does not constitute a case permitted under the proviso of the same Article.

Article 105 (1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "no one shall perform an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs by leaving more than two persons for an election campaign (five persons, including candidates, where he/she is accompanied by candidates): Provided, That where a person performs an act falling under subparagraph 2, he/she shall not include the number of his/her spouse (including one person, instead of his/her spouse, reported by a candidate from among his/her lineal ascendants or descendants), election campaign manager, chief of the election campaign liaison office, election campaign worker, and accountant in charge, in lieu of his/her spouse)," and Article 105 (2) of the same Act provides that "no person shall conduct an election campaign by wearing a cap or clothes in the same shape and color or carrying other marks: Provided, That this shall not apply where a person prescribed in the proviso to the part other than the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) wears a cap or mat-ts with the same shape and color as that of his/her lineal descendants, and it shall be deemed that the defendant's act constitutes an election campaign under the proviso to Article 105 (1) of the Public Official Election Act.

In the same purport, the fact-finding and decision of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the crime is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of Article 105 (2) of the Public Official Election Act as alleged in the

2. According to the records, the defendant is aware that there was no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the distribution of documents by unlawful means in the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty. Thus, the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the crime is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. In addition, in light of the records, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of this part of the crime is sufficiently acceptable. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted.

3. Since a fine was imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentence imposed by the court below is excessive cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)