The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the instant facts charged, O. 25 May 25, 2014.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant 1) do not publicly announce the fact that “P has permanent resident rights in the United States.” The Defendant does not conclude or suggest the fact that “P has a permanent resident rights in the United States,” or that “P currently holds permanent resident rights in the United States,” but does not make public the fact that there is suspicion of possession of permanent resident rights in the United States, or that there is suspicion of possession of permanent resident rights in the United States, and requires P to provide objective materials for explanation, and it is apparent in the context and context. Furthermore, the prosecutor must specify what the Defendant published in the public. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s disclosure of the fact that “P has obtained permanent resident rights in the United States at the time of U.S. working,” and that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to “the publication of false facts” and “the publication of false facts in the public announcement of the facts at the time of 2014.”

The request for explanation of this case and the request for presentation of objective explanatory materials about P constitutes criticism among competition candidates that are naturally scheduled in the election process and verification of eligibility for public office, and thus belongs to the category of legitimate election campaign allowed under the Public Official Election Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s demand for explanation on the suspicion of holding U.S. permanent sovereignty constitutes “public disclosure of false facts,” and that such demand constitutes such “public announcement.”