The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) The place where the Defendant distributed the name cards (the upper part of the stairs published as “E”) is outside, not the draft of religious facilities, and thus, the Defendant should be acquitted.

(2) The defendant delivered name cards to E in front of the road and delivered a name by moving them to a sculpary from the invitation of the temple, which had been in charge of traffic congestion on the T-road, so there was no intention in violation of the Public Official Election Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence (the suspended sentence and suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 500,00) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination as to the assertion that the place where name cards are distributed is outside of a religious facility. ① In the case of preliminary candidates, unlike candidates, the place restrictions are placed only on the issuance of name cards prior to the election period to the candidate is relatively long-term preliminary candidates’ prior election period to put economic burdens on preliminary candidates and prevent election from being excessive early, and the election is likely to be excessive. ② The phrase “within a religious facility” as provided in Article 26-2(1)2 of the Rules on the Management of Public Official Election is the concrete specification of the “place where many people pass or gather” as provided in Article 60-3(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act. Here, the phrase “ religious facility” does not mean only the inside building of a religious facility, but also means a place where a religious facility is installed within the zone or site distinct from the outside, and it conforms to the above legislative purpose, and ③ the structure of the temple of this case is not simply divided into the space where many people walk or gather, but also the structure of a religious symbol itself.