The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles is merely an expression or expression of opinion, or ordinary business activities and does not constitute an election campaign.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination on the misapprehension of the facts and the legal doctrine. The lower court, under the title “the determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” stated in detail, rejected the above assertion and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.

Examining the judgment of the court below and the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and otherwise there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

Now, (in addition to the evidence added in the above trial, it is insufficient to affect the judgment of the court below). Therefore, the Defendant’s mistake and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In full view of the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing, it is necessary to maintain the first sentencing judgment as it is.