[2] The case holding that if the military farmers' association distributes printed articles that include the contents of the decision to support a specific candidate to many unspecified persons who are not group members, and distributes printed articles that contain the contents of support and opposition to a specific candidate without including the contents of the decision to support the candidate, it is an organization which is allowed to support a specific candidate under the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act, it is an illegal election campaign

[2] The case holding that if the military farmers' association distributes printed articles that include the contents of the decision to support a specific candidate to many unspecified persons who are not group members, and distributes printed articles that contain the contents of support and opposition to a specific candidate without including the contents of the decision to support the candidate, it is an organization that allows support of a specific candidate under the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act, it is an illegal election campaign method even if it is an organization that allows support of a specific candidate

The defendants asserted that the printed matters, "the severe farmer's report" as stated in the judgment of the court below, which were produced and distributed by them, were distributed in accordance with the resolution of the above farmer's association as the newsletter of the 1st century, and that the above farmer's association can support and oppose specific candidates pursuant to Article 87 of the Public Official Election Act (hereinafter "Public Official Election Act"), so even if the defendants distributed the printed matters in the newsletter of the above farmer's association by inserting the contents supporting and opposing a specific candidate as stated in the facts charged in this case, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the Public Official Election Act. However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 87 of the same Act or by finding guilty of the facts charged in this case

Pursuant to Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act, any person may not distribute printed matters that support, recommend, or oppose a candidate without the provisions of this Act in order to influence an election. Meanwhile, under the proviso of Article 87 of the same Act, any organization that may invite candidates, visitors, or debates to hold an interview or debate pursuant to Article 81(1) of the same Act may hold an interview or debate in its name or the name of its representative during the election period. Thus, the first-class Association of Farmers and Fishermen in this case is an organization that is permitted to support, oppose, or oppose a specific candidate in its name during the election period (hereinafter referred to as an "permissible organization"). However, in light of the legislative purport of Article 1 of the same Act and the fact that a candidate himself/herself is permitted to carry out an election campaign only within the extent permitted under the same Act, it cannot be deemed that an election campaign can not be carried out without any restriction to support or oppose a specific candidate, and the legislative intent of Article 81(1) of the Public Official Election Act as an organization permitted to carry out an election campaign or debate in accordance with the proviso of Article 17 of the Public Official Election Act.

However, according to the facts duly admitted by the court below, Defendant 1 is currently serving as the chairperson of the 1st century; Defendant 2 is currently serving as the executive secretary of the above farmers' association; Defendant 3 is competing with Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 who are affiliated with the above 1st National Assembly on April 26, 2001. The above members of the 2nd National Assembly who are deemed to be able to represent the above farmers' positions by comparing the tendency of candidates for the new 1st National Assembly members and the 2nd National Assembly members of the 2nd National Assembly with the above 4th National Assembly's name and the 2nd National Assembly's name and distribution of the above 2nd National Assembly's new 3th National Assembly's name and the 1st National Assembly's name and the 2nd National Assembly's new 1st National Assembly's name and the 3th National Assembly's new 2nd National Assembly's name and the 1st National Assembly's new 3th National Assembly's name and the 2nd National Assembly's name.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the above opinion does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or mistake of mistake.

The above grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. Next, we examine Defendant 3’s grounds of appeal on unfair sentencing.

In this case where the above defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for less than 10 years, the argument that punishment is too heavy cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

The above grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)