The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the violation of Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides, “A candidate, his spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant, or sibling (including a person who intends to become a candidate; hereinafter the same shall apply in this Article) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won, in a case where a person who publishes or makes another person publish or has another person publish false facts (in case where a school career is inserted, including a case where it is not published by the method as provided in Article 64(1)) with respect to a candidate’s birth, status, occupation, career, property, personality, or activity of a candidate (including a person who intends to be a candidate; hereinafter the same shall apply in this Article)

The term "career, etc." refers to a candidate's "career, academic background, degree and punishment" (Article 64 (5) of the Public Official Election Act), and in light of the provisions of Article 250 (1) of the Public Official Election Act, the term "career, etc." refers to matters that affect the fair judgment of electors by recognizing the candidate's performance and ability such as his/her behavior or private affairs.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1022 Decided May 29, 2015, etc.). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant, on June 2, 2014, made a reply to the effect that he/she himself/herself “NK certified by the J” was an official announcement of false facts regarding the candidate’s career for the purpose of election.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the first instance court, and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, such determination by the lower court is justifiable. Contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules