The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by four months of imprisonment.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) 1 of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles - The evidence submitted by the prosecutor submitted by the prosecutor submitted that the Defendant is a student of C school even if the Defendant is the other party who sent text messages, the lower court determined that the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to view the submitted evidence as a student of C school, and otherwise, it is difficult to deem the Defendant to have engaged in an election campaign against V using the status of a public official. 2) The lower court’s judgment’

2. Where an ex officio sentence is pronounced, the facts constituting an offense, gist of evidence and applicable Acts and subordinate statutes shall be specified in the reasons for the judgment;

(Article 322(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The lower court did not indicate the gist of evidence in its reasoning when it convicted the Defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

Although the judgment of the court below has such reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. No public official who is the summary of this part of the facts charged may engage in an election campaign by taking advantage of his status.

On June 13, 2018, the Defendant thought that E, which was scheduled to go to D from the 7th local election scheduled to be carried out on June 13, 2018, was elected from F to a single candidate, and furthermore, was thought to support D elections to be elected.

At around 09:34, Jan. 28, 2018, the Defendant connected the Defendant’s mobile phone to G with the ID of “H”, using the Defendant’s mobile phone, and then sent text messages to V, a student of Cschool, as indicated in attached Form 21 of the List of Crimes as indicated in the lower judgment, and carried out an election campaign by taking advantage of his status as a public official.

B. The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, is insufficient to view V as a Cschool student.