The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Subjective constituent elements, such as intention, are also subject to confession as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles related to the confession evidence.

Reinforcement evidence for confessions is sufficient if it is sufficient to recognize that the confessions of the accused are true, not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime, and it is sufficient to prove that the confessions of the accused are true, and indirect evidence is not direct evidence or circumstantial evidence is also corroborative evidence. If confessions and corroborative evidence are mutually consistent and it is possible to prove the facts constituting the crime as whole

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11272, Dec. 23, 2010). The lower court determined that the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act and the purpose of winning the election, on the grounds that the Defendant led to the confession of the facts charged in the instant case and the reinforcement evidence thereto exist

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the rules of reinforcement

2. As to the allegation of omission in judgment, the Defendant could not recognize the Defendant’s intentional act only with the confession of an unfair sentencing in the first instance court, and the Defendant did not directly participate in the act of publishing false facts, and the Defendant asserted misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles to the effect that “the purpose to be elected” is not recognized, but withdrawn the remaining grounds for appeal except for the unfair sentencing on the second trial date of the lower court, and the lower court did not decide ex officio

In such a case, even if the lower court did not determine whether the Defendant’s omission of obligation satisfies the elements of “in favor of the candidate”, the lower court erred by omitting the judgment.