The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) was that the report on the property submitted by the Defendant at the time of the registration of the candidate for the 20th National Assembly election was entirely prepared by N, who is a visa, and the Defendant did not verify the contents stated in the above report and did not know the specific contents. However, in the case of the 1/2 equity of the 1/2 equity shares, “in the case of the 19th National Assembly members, the value of the entire land, not the value of the 1/2 equity shares, was falsely reported at the time of the registration of the said candidate, and the fact that the 1/2 equity shares was reported at the time of the registration of the said candidate was reported at the price of the pertinent property, and the said candidate was believed to be the fact that the 1/2 equity shares was reported at the time of the registration of the said candidate, and the Defendant was permitted N to report the property as such.

If so, even if N's mistake (the value of 1/2 shares out of the land in this case was reported properly at the time of the registration of the previous public official, but the value of the property in this case was erroneously stated in the report submitted at the time of the registration of the candidate, and the value of the property in this case was finally stated differently from the facts, the defendant did not have the awareness that the property in this case was falsely stated and publicly announced.

Nevertheless, the lower court, without recognizing that the Defendant’s entries in the N’s property report are false, made the Defendant submit it to the Election Management Committee as it is, and subsequently publicly announced false facts concerning the Defendant’s property as a candidate.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion at the lower court as to the same purport as the alleged misunderstanding of the above facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court committed 3rd 8 of the said judgment.