The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The defendant as a journalist only made a report to inform the general public of the truth and did not have an intention to influence the election of GGun. The defendant did not have any relation with the candidates at the time, and there was no benefit from slandering the H candidates whose election was almost reliable, and the contents of newspaper articles were the contents of urging H candidates, and distributed them in the way of inserting them in front of the vehicle parked in the front door form. It cannot be deemed that there was an intention to influence the election. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which held that the defendant committed the original trial for the purpose of influencing the election. 2) Even if it is recognized that the purpose of influencing the election was to influence the election of the defendant, the defendant's crime of this case constitutes a justifiable act and thus, is not unlawful.

B. The lower court’s sentencing on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Whether there was an intention to influence the election or not, under the premise of Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act, restricting the acts set forth therein on the premise of "to influence the election" is an intentional act other than intentional act, which sets forth the "purposes that affect the election" as an element for establishing the crime as an element for supervising the crime. The purpose is not required to actively desire or finally recognize it, but it is sufficient only with dolusent perception, and whether there was such an objective is a social status of the defendant, the defendant, or the candidate for candidate competition.