1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of the Defendants’ appeal, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendants were guilty of this case’s facts charged (excluding the part on which the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict of the grounds for appeal) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “in the subway station” under the proviso of Article 60-3(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 14556, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter the same).

2. Examining the reasoning of the Prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have acquitted Defendant A on the ground that the violation of the Public Official Election Act regarding “the portion of Defendant A distributed name 84 from the front entrance of the subway J station to the outside of the subway J station” among the facts charged in the instant case was not a crime or there was no proof of a crime.

In doing so, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on “in the subway stations” under the proviso of Article 60-3(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act.

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