The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 60 (1) 4 of the Public Official Election Act provides that public officials shall not engage in an election campaign in principle, and Article 85 (1) provides that public officials shall not engage in an election campaign by taking advantage of their status, and Article 85 (1) provides that public officials shall not engage in an election campaign even if they do not reach an election campaign for those who are in a public position such as public officials in Article 86.

The purpose of this is to ensure the fairness of election by thoroughly eliminating the possibility of intervention of officials in the elections or public positions.

In light of the legislative intent of Article 86 of the Public Official Election Act and the relationship with other provisions of the Public Official Election Act, the term "act of participating in the planning of an election campaign or in the implementation of such planning", which is one of the acts prohibited under Article 86 (1) 2 of the Public Official Election Act, means an act of participating in the planning of an election campaign or in the direct implementation of, or direction and guidance on, the implementation of, all plans for the efficient implementation of an election campaign, as it does not reach an election campaign for the purpose of getting elected or not to be elected, shall be interpreted as an act of participating in the planning of an election campaign or an act of directly implementing, or not necessarily means an

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do2932, Mar. 25, 2004; 2007Do4069, Oct. 25, 2007). The lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court partially inappropriate part of the reasoning of the judgment, but exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.