The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. “Election campaign” under Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act refers to all acts that are favorable to the necessity or advantage for the election, votes, or defeat of a specific candidate, and that can be objectively recognized as an objective objective for the purpose of promoting the election or defeat of a certain candidate. It is distinguishable from the preparation of an internal or procedural preparation for an election campaign for a future election campaign or ordinary political party activities; however, in determining whether a certain act constitutes an election campaign, it shall be determined by comprehensively observing not only the name of such act, but also the form of such act, namely, the place and method of such act, etc., as well as the form of such act, in order to determine whether such act constitutes an election campaign.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do1432, Apr. 9, 199). In addition, in relation to an election campaign under Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, the term "in relation to an election campaign" is more broad than for an election campaign, and there was no purpose of affecting the purpose or election of an election.

Even if the act itself was established in the necessity to regulate the act that is likely to infringe on the freedom of election, it does not necessarily require the provision of money or goods to be the price for election campaign, and it includes what is related to election campaign, such as the cost for providing information related to election campaign, and the cost for election campaign-related persons (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2001HunBa26, Apr. 25, 2002). The court below's decision based on the adopted evidence is stated in its reasoning.