The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant agreed with F and Election Policy Association, and the Defendant’s election campaign bulletin does not constitute a false part of the “F candidates and Election Policy.”

On the contrary, the lower court’s witness F, H, and I, who made a statement consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, found F to fall under the violation of the Public Official Election Act when the F and the Defendant’s election policy solidarity, and denied it. Moreover, the said witness cannot be believed to have made such a statement, such as the reversal of several statements or inconsistency between them. However, the lower court’s judgment that found the above witness’s statement guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was not jointly and severally associated with F and election policies, and that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant entered the fact in the election campaign bulletin of the Defendant and published false information.

1) The F and F election campaign-related persons (H and I) consistently state that they did not have any joint and several relationship by negotiating or sharing the Defendant’s election and policy, and Defendant’s election campaign-related persons also stated that they did not directly contact or talk with the F election campaign, nor did they go through the Defendant, and they coincide with the F’s statement. Furthermore, the Defendant also recognized that there was no fact that the F election campaign-related persons negotiated or decided specifically with the F election campaign-related persons in addition to the content as alleged by the Defendant. 2) Meanwhile, in the instant election, the F was going to the E as a candidate to which he belongs, and that the F was going to the O (O) while going to the E, and that the F election campaign-related persons came to the Defendant’s mobile phone heading in order to mobilize the F election campaign-related persons.