beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. Progress of judgment and scope of judgment of this court;
A. On February 15, 2016, from around April 13, 2016 to around April 13, 2016, the prosecutor prosecuted the defendant against the charge that he/she carried out an election campaign 15 times in total as shown in the separate crime list by sharing other people's writing on one type of the defendant's Facebook (Faceok) Social Network service at a non-place (hereinafter referred to as "social network service"). The court of first instance found the defendant guilty as to the violation of each of the Public Official Election Act stated in the separate crime list No. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15 (hereinafter referred to as "the charges"), and found the defendant not guilty as to each of the charges of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the charges of acquittal"), and found the defendant guilty as to each of the charges of acquittal in the separate crime list No. 1, No. 4, 9, 10, 12, and 130.
With respect to the judgment of the first instance court, the defendant appealed respectively on the grounds of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the guilty portion and misunderstanding of facts, and unfair sentencing.
3) The first instance court prior to remand rejected all the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and all of the appeals by the Defendant and the Prosecutor were dismissed. The Defendant appealed against the judgment prior to remand on the grounds of misapprehending the legal principles as to the guilty portion. 4) The Supreme Court reversed the conviction part of the judgment prior to remand and remanded the case to this court.
B. The prosecutor did not appeal the part of the judgment of the court prior to the remanding the scope of the trial of this court, and only the defendant filed an appeal against the guilty part. The above acquitted part shall be deemed to have been separately determined upon the expiration of the period of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1402, Jan. 21, 1992).