The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on the facts and circumstances as indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that K had officially expressed the intention of candidate for the 20th National Assembly member election (hereinafter “instant election”) at the time of preparation of the instant printed matter as indicated in its holding, or that at least such an intention had been expressed.

Article 93(1), Article 250(2), Article 250(1), and Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act apply to “a person who wishes to be a candidate” as a person who has reached the degree of objective recognition. The content of the inducement in this case constitutes a specific fact, not an individual opinion as alleged by the defendant, considering the whole purport of the inducement in this case. The contents of the inducement in this case constitute false facts, and the defendant was aware of it at the time. The purpose of the inducement in this case was to prevent K, who is a candidate for I, supported by the defendant, from being elected in the election in this case. The inducement in this case was against K, and there was an intentional intent against the defendant at the time of the election, and as long as the contents of the inducement in this case are false facts, it is unlawful regardless of whether the defendant’s act is for the public interest.

In view of the facts charged in the instant case, the first deliberation decision that found the Defendant guilty was maintained.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the legal principles as seen in the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted, the court below’s finding and determination of the above facts are justifiable, and there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of false information under Article 250(2) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials, the crime of slandering candidates under Article 251, the crime of slandering candidates under Article 255(2)5 and Article 93(1) of the Act, and the crime of unlawful election due to the distribution of documents by unlawful means under Article 25(2)5 and Article 93(1).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.