The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Compared to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, 7 forms out of 33 to 34 pages printed on the advance ballot paper are the unique number of ballot papers, and information created at the time when the elector arrives at the voting place and printed out the paper, and the elector’s voting was stored in the server. Thus, it should be deemed that the above QR code included the elector’s personal information. Accordingly, the Defendant C (hereinafter “instant”).

3) The web NNNNNNNNN hereinafter referred to as “D”

2) The Defendant’s assertion of the instant web does not constitute a false fact, and the Defendant’s act of advertising the instant web does not constitute “a deceptive scheme or other unlawful means” as prescribed by Article 237(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant web is merely 13 persons, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant did not advance polling after inquiring, and even if so, the said 13 persons did not inquire into the instant web claim and did not advance polling.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see that the reason for posting the web of this case did not reach the extent that the Defendant’s act of posting the web of this case did not interfere with the freedom of election.

3) The Defendant only exercised the freedom of expression in order to point out the problems of the current advance polling system that goes against the principle of secrecy of voting, and did not have any awareness or intent to interfere with the freedom of election. B. The Defendant’s punishment (fine 2,500,000) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant’s act of publishing the web of this case constitutes deceptive means, deceptive means, or other wrongful means as stipulated in Article 237(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act, and the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal on this part. The lower court stated in its judgment on the above assertion and judgment.