All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A and B(1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials in the Act on the Election of Public Officials in the Act on the Election of Public Officials in the Republic of Korea provides for respective definitions of the Broadcasting Act, the Act on the Implementation of Newspapers, Etc., the Act on the Promotion of News Communications, the Act on the Promotion of News Communications, the Arbitration of Press, and the Remedies for Damage, etc. with respect to “broadcasting”, “Examination”, “communication”, “communication”, and “maga and other publications,” and these Acts separately regulate “Internet Newspapers”.

Therefore, “broadcasting, communication, magazine or other publications” under Article 97(2) of the Public Official Election Act does not include “Internet newspaper”.

However, the lower court determined that Defendant C, who operates the Internet media “K”, constituted “a person who manages and operates the relevant broadcast, newspaper, communication, magazine, or other publications, or who gathers news gathering and reports,” as prescribed by Article 97(2) of the Election of Public Officials Act, was guilty by applying Articles 235(2) and 97(2) of the Election of Public Officials Act to Defendant A and B.

Such judgment of the court below is against the principle of strict interpretation of penal law and the principle of prohibition of extended interpretation of penal law, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by erroneous interpretation and application of Article 97 (2) of the Public Official Election Act concerning "broadcasting, communication, or other publications".

2) Defendant A did not know that Defendant C was a reporter because he did not show a name card or a reporter, and Defendant A did not know that two materials sent by Defendant C were SNS promotional materials, but did not recognize that Defendant C was a news article. As such, Defendant A did not intend to offer money and valuables to Defendant C in relation to the report on election.

However, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Defendant B entered into an advertising contract with Defendant C, and the Defendant B entered into it.