The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4, in a case where only the prosecutor appealeds the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the defendant did not file an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the defendant cannot be deemed as the grounds of appeal against the appellate judgment on the grounds of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do579, May 28, 2009). According to the records, the prosecutor appealed only against the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the lower court accepted the prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing and reversed

In such a case, the argument that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the concept of "the act of directly giving name cards or appeal for support" under Article 60-3 (1) 2 of the Public Official Election Act, "the use" under Articles 255 (2) 4 and 91 (1), and "the use" under Article 250 (2) cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The court below rejected an application for change of trial date on the fifth ground of appeal since the court's change of trial date belongs to the court's discretion.

Even if it is not illegal, it is not illegal.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant's private defense counsel present together with the defendant on the first trial date of the court below and present the facts for the defendant. Thus, the ground of appeal that the right to assistance of counsel was infringed in the court below's trial procedure cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.