The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and D shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the distribution of documents and prior election campaign by the illegal means of Defendant A, B, and C, the lower court determined that ① the party members’ personnel sentence and the new personnel sentence were clearly divided into the subject of dispatch, content, preparation process, and purpose of dispatch, but they cannot be determined based on the same criteria, and the party members’ personnel sentence were determined as one of them as a prior election campaign prohibited by the Public Official Election Act even though they constitute ordinary party activities. ② Defendant C prepared the draft of personnel inquiry by the new party members, but the final personnel sentence, as recognized by Defendant B, was independently prepared by Defendant B, thereby recognizing Defendant C’s public recruitment or functional control. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as seen above and by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The lower court determined that Defendant A and D’s act of distributing a religious facility despite the fact that the place where Defendant A and D distributed the name cards does not constitute “the inside of a religious facility” prohibited under the proviso to Article 60-3 subparag. 1 subparag. 2 of the Public Official Election Act, was an act of distributing the inside name cards of the religious facility. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as to whether it constitutes “the inside of a religious facility” or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

3) Even if Defendant A and D distributed the above name cards, the place where Defendant A and D distributed can be seen as “ inside a religious facility.”

Even if the Act on the Election of Public Officials was amended as of December 29, 2020, and the Act on the Election of Public Officials was amended to restrict a preliminary candidate’s election campaign only “indoors of a hospital, religious facility, or theater” under the proviso to Article 60-3(1)2 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials. This ultimately constitutes a case where the act does not constitute a crime due to a change in the law after the crime, and thus, a judgment of acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to Article 326(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(iv)..