A. On February 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) held a publishing commemorative meeting on February 22, 2014; (b) sent 8,389 copies to the electorates, along with J and G, by raising the Defendant’s awareness by sending the invitation letter.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the violation of the Public Official Election Act under the law only for 6,169 out of the letter of invitation to dispatch 8,389 ("6,169") and found the defendant not guilty on the remaining 2,220 (i.e., 8,389 - 6,169 - hereinafter "this part of the facts charged"), which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on G Election Commission (hereinafter “FSC”) that corresponds to this part of the facts charged.

2) The lower court’s judgment is justifiable and acceptable in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court, on the grounds that it is difficult to believe this part of the facts charged and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged in light of G’s senior officer, police, prosecutor’s office, other statements made in the lower court, and each of the JJ’s statements. 2) The facts charged in a criminal trial in the relevant legal doctrine ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes it difficult for a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof is not sufficiently short of the degree to have the aforementioned conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the Defendant’s assertion, defense, inconsistency with one another, or uncompetied statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011).