The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,200,00.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel on September 9, 2016 following the deadline for submitting a written reason for appeal to conduct a prior election campaign due to sending a letter of personnel management through a counsel's written opinion, which was sent on September 9, 2016. The defendant's defense counsel is acknowledged to have dispatched a letter of personnel management, but it cannot be deemed to have reached the conclusion of the fact that the letter of personnel management reached the union members since it is not recognized to have reached the fact that the letter of personnel management reached the union members, and there is no provision to impose a non-criminal punishment. Thus, this part of the facts charged

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below, the Defendant did not provide L/M with a destroyed value, and Saturdays provided a 1,000 won to L/M, but earth and sand merely did not reach the degree of decision-making by the elector, and thus cannot be deemed as property gains. In light of all the circumstances, it does not constitute an election campaign as ordinary, ordinary, or private acts.

2) Of the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment, the facts constituting an election campaign in advance cannot be deemed as an ordinary, courtesy, or private act.

3) Of the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment, the Defendant did not transmit the same text message as indicated in the facts charged at the time of sending text message as indicated in the facts charged, to one person to test whether the first day of the election period is well transmitted. As such, the Defendant sent the text message to 11 without knowing that the Defendant was designated as a party to the transmission, it does not constitute an intentional act, not an intentional act, and even if it was intentionally committed, the Defendant did not commit a crime.