Of the guilty portion and the innocent portion of the judgment of the court below, the sequence 1, 2, and 3 of Attached Table 1 of the List of Offenses and Table 2 of the List of Offenses.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is recognized that Defendant A (1) by misapprehending the legal principles, posted a signboard or banner stating “H” on the outside wall of the office and distributed the same to the head of the mountain team, thereby allowing Defendant A to wear it.

However, this is an exceptionally permissible act according to the provisions of Article 90(2)2 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 47(2)2(b), and Article 47-2(c) of the Rules on the Management of Public Official Election.

The judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment of Defendant B (the fine of KRW 700,000) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

C. The prosecutor (1) sending text messages from the Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the annexed list 1 of the crime sight table and the annexed list 2 to the Defendants constitutes an election campaign for the purpose of Defendant A, who is a candidate, to the 7th nationwide local election.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged as to the violation of prohibition of an election campaign by the organization and restriction of an election campaign through text messages on the premise that the above act does not constitute an election campaign.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment to add the facts charged against the violation of the Public Official Election Act as stated in the judgment below with regard to Nos. 1 2 and 3 of the list of crimes committed at the trial, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court as stated in the reasoning of the judgment below.

The revised charges are in a mutually concurrent relationship with the charges of violating the Public Official Election Act in 5/6 attached Table 2, attached Table 5, and 6.