All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant 1’s installation of brochures in the Trade Union Office, such as the instant facts charged, on which the F candidate’s summary records and pledges are recorded, does not constitute an election campaign under the Act on the Election of Public Officials, because it is an ordinary party activity or ordinary courtesy trade union activity.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (not guilty part of the reasoning of the judgment below), the court below acquitted the defendant on the charge of a prior election campaign in collusion with a person with a false name, on the ground that all of the facts charged are proved.

2. In the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected this assertion in detail, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, by specifying in detail the judgment on the “determination of the Defendant and the

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just and there is a violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The lower court determined the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts based on the following facts: (a) recognized the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence; and (b) found that this part of the charges

It is difficult to see

The Court rendered a not-guilty verdict.

Examining the various circumstances cited by the lower court with the record and closely, it is reasonable to view that the lower court’s determination of evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of fact is considerably unfair due to its violation of logical and empirical rules.