1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not properly examine the phrases of the election campaign bulletin of this case and there was no awareness that Defendant A published false facts with respect to the election campaign of the head of the cooperative, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged of this case, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles independently made the language of the election campaign bulletin of this case, and Defendant A did not participate in the election campaign bulletin of this case, the judgment of the court below which determined that the Defendants conspired as the facts charged of this case, and there was an error of law by misunderstanding of facts

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

A. The relevant legal doctrine’s intention includes not only a conclusive intention, but also so-called “the intention to recognize the occurrence of a result” as well as the so-called “the intention to recognize it.” As such, the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act, or the crime of defamation in publications under Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act is also established by dolusent intentional act (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do5190, Feb. 26, 2004). Such legal doctrine likewise applies to the crime of publishing false facts under Article 60(1) of the Act on Elections.

If it is recognized that it is possible for the accused to confirm whether the specific facts alleged by him/her are true by time and physical social norms without making any effort to confirm them, and if he/she actively went to the statement of the fact with the purpose of slandering it, dolusent intention may be recognized.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Do5190 delivered on February 26, 2004). B

The lower court’s specific determination is as follows.