beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of conviction and the part of acquittal on April 13, 2016, respectively, shall be reversed.
Reasons
Although it constitutes an election campaign, the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles, thereby not constituting an election campaign, thereby misunderstanding the legal principles as to the summary of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding the legal principles as to posting each of the above items as stated in Nos. 1 and 7 of the List of Offenses Nos. 1
The wrong determination was made.
It is unfair that the court below's improper decision of sentencing has suspended the sentence of punishment (one million won) to the defendant, because the amount of punishment is too uneased.
Judgment
The judgment below
Attached Form
No. 1 of the crime sight table No. 1, which was duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and records: ① the function of H’s “sharing” was used in simply storing information due to personal needs; ② the defendant merely shared newspaper articles, and did not add his opinion; ③ the defendant reported the above newspaper articles at H of another teacher’s teacher’s office as to the co-ownership of this part; and ③ the contents were re-written.
I stated that the content of the relevant newspaper article was shared, and actually, it can be deemed that the entertainment centering on emphasizing the launch of an election banner. ④ The Defendant did not put a notice on the AF as stated in the above banner before or after the posting of the above article, and there was no direct relation between the Defendant and the AF, ⑤ the Defendant did not put a similar article on H before the posting of the above article, or posted a notice on support or opposition to a specific political party or candidate for about 20 days from the date of posting the above article to March 30, 2016.
In full view of the fact that there is no evidence, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is difficult to view that the defendant's sharing of this part of the article by itself constitutes an objectively recognized case for the purpose of promoting AF's success, and there is no other evidence to prove that it constitutes an election campaign.
Therefore, it is true.