The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of the public prosecution room, the Defendant and the co-defendant A, B (hereinafter “B”) did not specify the date and time, method, etc. of the public prosecution among the Defendant and the co-defendant A, B (hereinafter “A”), thereby hindering the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense.

Nevertheless, the court below found that since the facts charged in this case were specified, the exercise of the defendant's right to defense was hindered.

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of the facts charged.

2) The Defendant did not have conspired to commit the instant crime with A, B, or the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the establishment of a joint principal offender.

Nevertheless, the lower court, on the sole basis of several indirect or circumstantial facts, conspiredd with A and B by the Defendant.

The decision was determined.

Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of a joint principal offender for public offering.

3) misunderstanding the legal principles on the grounds for the exclusion of illegality, even if the Defendant conspired with A and B.

The act of distributing the instant printed matter, which is an article reported to the media, is limited to distributing it to the elector's right to know, and it does not have any influence on the candidate in the election. Thus, the act of distributing the instant printed matter constitutes a justifiable act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty, and in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for the dismissal of illegality.

4) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. To examine ex officio the reasons for appeal prior to the judgment on ex officio (revision of indictment).

For the first time, a prosecutor has filed an application for change of indictment with the content that changes the facts charged in the instant case as stated in the column of “criminal facts” as stated below, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

Therefore, it is true.