The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the violation of the Public Official Election Act of December 5, 2017 among the facts charged in the instant case, and the prosecutor did not appeal against this. As such, the portion of innocence was separated and determined as it is, and excluded from the scope of the trial for the party.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the prohibition of election campaign by public officials (legal scenario 1), the act of violating the Public Official Election Act related to D related to the judgment of the court below (the act of violating the prohibition of election campaign by public officials) cannot be considered as an election campaign, on the ground that D is a closed-type D consisting of F's support members, and it is not an election campaign. In the case of the act of violating the Public Official Election Act related to J related to the judgment of the court below (the act of violating the attached Table 2 in the judgment of the court below), it shall be deemed as an act permitted as an ordinary political activity or social activity, not an election campaign prohibited by the Public Official Election Act, but an election campaign. (2) Even if the act of violating the Public Official Election Act related to D related to the judgment of the court below claiming a single comprehensive crime constitutes an election campaign, it is not a concurrent crime but a

B. As to the public official’s promotion of candidate’s achievements (legal scenarios) 1), the Defendant’s act of asserting that the Defendant’s act does not constitute public relations of candidate’s achievements does not indicate specific facts that it is deemed that it is a candidate’s achievements, and thus does not constitute public relations of candidate’s achievements. 2) The provision prohibiting public official’s promotion of candidate’s achievements in legal concurrence should

If a candidate's promotional activity of a public official is deemed an election campaign, it is sufficient to apply the prohibition provision on election campaign to the public official, and the prohibition provision on promotion of candidate's achievements should not be applied

C. The lower court’s sentencing (2 million won of fine) is excessively excessive.