The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant notices,” and each of the instant notices is referred to as the sequence of crime list in the annexed sheet of the judgment below). In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant posted each of the instant notices at the time when the 20th National Assembly election (hereinafter April 13, 2016) was imminent; and (b) each of the instant notices was set up as “total disclosure”; and (c) the Defendant’s posting of each of the instant notices to one’s own C is obvious that the Defendant’s posting constitutes an election campaign.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous in misapprehending legal principles.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act constituted an act clearly expressed with the intent of promoting the election or defeat of a specific person or a specific political party appearing in each of the instant notices, in light of the following circumstances that can be known from the above evidence, even though the Defendant used each of the instant notices from March 10, 2016 to April 9, 2016 as “shared” and stored and posted them in G, the lower court determined that such act constituted an act clearly expressed.

① Each of the instant notices is not directly written by the Defendant, but merely shared articles, etc. to his own G, and the Defendant only shared each of the notices once and did not have any opinion thereon.

② From a few years ago, the Defendant used C’s function as “shared”, and stored and posted a variety of posts constituting one’s political review, such as I, J, and K, in G.

The Defendant’s notices.