The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) is that an article aground in the front door of a vehicle parked by the defendant is not “advertisement”, which points out the problems of the past presidential election.

In light of the freedom of expression, the right to know, and the principle of prohibition of abuse under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, which are the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the Defendant cannot be punished as the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act for lack of illegality.

2. The Defendant also asserted as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected all of the aforementioned arguments by clearly explaining the arguments of the Defendant in detail on the written judgment. A thorough examination of the lower court in comparison with the evidential materials, the lower court’s judgment is justified (Article 3(1)9 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides that, as the lower court has concluded that the articles distributed in this case are not advertising materials, the Defendant shall not be “advertisement” but “advertisement, etc.,” and the above articles are not typical advertisements as alleged by the Defendant, but shall be included in the scope of “advertisement, etc.,” as they fall under the category of “advertisement, etc.,” which is either affixed to the purpose of widely informing the subject, or because they fall under the replacement of the posters, etc. on the poster poster and its similar matters.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the contents, number, circumstances, time of the distribution of the instant article, etc., even if considering the purpose of the distribution claimed by the Defendant and the contents of the article, the punishment of the Defendant’s above act constitutes a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act within the scope necessary to maintain the order of the community. It seems that it excessively limits the fundamental rights enjoyed by the Defendant or the right to know of the people, or it violates the principle of prohibition of abuse as stipulated in the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.