The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 900,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, although the defendant, who is a candidate of the 7th Dong-si Local Election B Council member, visited the house of AA, AB, AC, and AD for election campaign, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 800,000 won) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(a) No person charged may visit door to door for the election campaign;

Nevertheless, at around 19:30 on May 10, 2018, the Defendant visited the house of the electorate AA in the Z, distributed its name cards, and complained for support. From that time to June 2, 2018, the Defendant visited 4 times in total, as shown in the list of crimes (3) in the attached Table of the lower judgment, for an election campaign.

B. The crime of door-to-door visits under Article 106(1) of the Public Official Election Act is established by continuously visiting two or more houses, and the crime of door-to-door visits does not necessarily require entry into their home units, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Do2115, Nov. 27, 1979; 99Do2315, Nov. 12, 199); and the number of door-to-door visits is only three households.

It cannot be said that there is no illegality of punishment solely on the ground that he/she conducted personnel affairs of the main gate or other letter without entering the entrance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do430 delivered on February 25, 2000). C.

Judgment

1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to door-to-door visits by AA and AB, the fact that the Defendant visited the house of AA and AB for an election campaign cannot be deemed to have been proven without reasonable doubt.

The court below held.