The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the facts charged in this case were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on whether the facts charged constitute elements of Article

In addition, Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act provides that the fair election is guaranteed by publicly announcing false facts about candidates to be disadvantageous to candidates and punishing all acts that affect the fair judgment of the voters.

Considering the legislative intent and the relevant provisions of the Public Official Election Act comprehensively, even if it is based on the ordinary interpretation method that does not allow any person, any person can sufficiently predict what meaning “to be disadvantageous to a candidate by means of a propaganda document or other means” which is stipulated in the above provision, so the use of the concept requiring supplementary interpretation of the judge does not constitute a violation of the principle of clarity of the principle

(See Constitutional Court Order 2007HunBa72 Decided March 26, 2009). Therefore, the ground of appeal on the premise that the above provision is unconstitutional is without merit.

Among the grounds of appeal, the argument that the defendant's act was due to legal mistake is not a ground of appeal, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, the judgment of the court below does not seem to have any illegality as alleged.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty is imposed.