The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case shall be dismissed.

A. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the guilty on each charged facts, despite the following reasons.

1) The Defendant’s partial revision of the response samples obtained through a public opinion poll cannot be deemed as “distort” as a result of a public opinion poll, because it is only an error within the permissible range of error. The Defendant attempted to prevent anticipated confusion when it is published as it is because there is a big difference between the result of a public opinion poll conducted by the Defendant and the result of another public opinion poll conducted by the Defendant, and there was no intention to distort the results of a public opinion poll.

2) The Defendant merely decided to adjust the results of the public opinion poll within the error scope, and did not take part in M’s handling pursuant to the above decision, and the Defendant did not manipulate or manipulate the data on the public opinion poll, but did not have distorted the results of the public opinion poll. Thus, the adjustment within the error scope above cannot be deemed as distorted the results of the public opinion poll. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed as false data submitted to the Committee for Deliberation on the Fair Committee on the Public Opinion

3) The original copy of the data relating to the public opinion poll conducted by the Defendant is all stored in the server of the LABC, an external company that manages the public opinion poll system server, and the deleted data by the Defendant is not merely an original data connected to and utilized by the data management system by this tamp system business, but not an original data.