The judgment below

Among the advertisements, the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the posting shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be applied.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant posted the advertisements in order to conduct an election campaign using propaganda facilities tools prior to the election campaign period and to influence the election from 180 days before the election day to the election day by carrying out one person demonstration using words such as “O” before J 12:00, and the name of “O” and the name of “F” with a photograph attached thereto, and by carrying out one person demonstration.

The prosecutor indicted the Defendant on the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the prior election campaign that he violated Article 254(2) of the Public Official Election Act, and the violation of Article 256(3)1(h) and Article 90(1) of the Public Official Election Act due to the notice that he violated Article 256(3)1(h) and Article 90(1) of the Public Official Election Act.

On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of all the charges of this case against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s act as stated in the facts charged constitutes posting of advertisements, etc. stipulated in Article 90(1)1 of the Act on the Election of Public Offices, but the Defendant’s act objectively opposed F’s public order, and that the Defendant’s act constitutes “a simple statement and expression of opposition to the recommendation of candidates of political parties” that is excluded from election campaign, and that it does not constitute election campaign.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record on the grounds of appeal on the violation of the Act on the Election of Public Officials through Preliminary Election, the lower court’s aforementioned determination as to the violation of the Act on the Election of Public Officials by Preliminary Election is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of free conviction due to violation of logical and empirical rules

3. As to the ground of appeal on the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to a notice of advertisement

A. Advertisements among the facts charged in the instant case