According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below affirmed the charge that "candidate, etc. cannot use a video device for election campaign except for the case of speech or interview at an open place, and the use of a loudspeaker system for election campaign is restricted at night even in the case of use of a speech, interview or debate at a speech, interview or debate place, and even in the case of use of a loudspeaker system at night, the use of the loudspeaker system is restricted at night, despite the defendant's decision date and time, and in the case of allowing the use of a loudspeaker system at night, the defendant printed out the video and voice such as the election campaign, etc. using a video reproduction and loudspeaker installed in the promotional vehicle at the election campaign place." The judgment below is justified and there is no violation of the Public Official Election Act (Articles 255 (2) 6, 100, and 91 (1) of the Public Official Election Act) due to the violation of restrictions on use of loudspeaker system and the violation of restrictions on use of video device (Articles 255 (2) 4 and 91).

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

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)