All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

In this case, in light of the regional characteristics, purpose, etc. of which a candidate for the E party election is elected as an area where the relationship between the defendant and the candidate, motive of the act, situation at the time of the act, time of the act, contents and mode of the act, remuneration tendency, etc., the defendant carried out an election campaign together with the internal competition campaign.

It is reasonable to view it.

In light of the fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles as to the prosecutor’s assertion that the above punishment is too unreasonable (defendants). In light of the fact that the “election for public office” and “in-house competition” are clearly distinguishable and the competition campaign is permitted against ordinary voters who are not party members in the process of “in-house competition”, it is reasonable to readily conclude that such act constitutes an election campaign, solely on the basis that the Defendant’s intent to participate in or defeat in the election in “in-house competition” and “in-house competition” and “in-house competition” were included in the contents of the “in-house competition” and “in-house competition” and “in-house competition” as a whole, the Defendant’s act is not deemed to constitute an election campaign (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12172, May 9, 2013).

Therefore, the evidence presented by the prosecutor is alone.