A. Defendant 1) Of the facts charged of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the part that the first instance court found guilty (the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to publication of false facts on April 5, 2012) of the facts charged of this case cannot be deemed as false facts in the crime of publication of false facts under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act. Even if it is not so, the Defendant did not recognize it as false. Thus, the first instance court, which found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The punishment of the first instance court (the fine of KRW 500,000) which was sentenced by the unjust sentencing judgment, is too unreasonable.

B. On April 5, 2012, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the following grounds: (a) on or around April 5, 2012, the expression of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false facts constitutes both false facts as to the candidate’s “act” and “act” of the candidate; (b) on or around April 3, 2012 and around April 7, 2012, the expression of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false facts did not constitute a false fact as to the candidate’s “career”; and (c) on or around April 3, 2012, the Defendant acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. Such determination of the first instance court erred by misapprehending the facts, or by misapprehending the legal principles, by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the first instance court, and the first instance court’s argument is the “Defendant and the defense counsel of the said judgment.”