The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant violated the Public Official Election Act due to erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine due to distribution by means other than ordinary methods of newspapers (hereinafter “H Newspapers”) published on April 23, 2014 (hereinafter “instant Examination”).

A) Recognizing the fact that the Defendant distributed the instant newspaper to 3 persons, including J, to 4-5 persons, the Defendant was found not guilty of the distribution of the remaining 4-5 persons. However, according to the J’s statement, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant distributed the instant newspaper to 7-8 persons. 2) The Defendant’s friendly relationship between C and Gun G to the effect that he/she works for a local public corporation C (a) on May 10, 2014, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the friendly relationship between C and Gun G works for a local public corporation (a) around 13:30 on May 13, 2014, about 10 community residents in the community hall located in Gyeonggi M, and on June 4, 2014, U and T, a public corporation

(B) G’s statement to the effect that G was given preferential treatment to N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) in relation to the installation of a crematorium because the said employee is not in a relationship between G and his relative within the eighth degree of kinship or relative within the fourth degree of relationship within the ordinary meaning. As such, G did not intend to give preferential treatment to N in relation to the selection of a crematorium installer.

Even according to the C military council’s minutes of administrative affairs audit on April 19, 2011, the Defendant, who was a member of the C military council at the time, was only the answer of the working-level good faith that “a business entity that proposed the installation of a crematorium by undergoing a regular legal procedure is N, and in reality, N is the most reasonable.”

Nevertheless, the Defendant made a false statement that G intended to give preferential treatment to N in the above community center.

3) The lower court, on June 3, 2014, sent text messages to the 343 military residents on June 3, 2014 (hereinafter “the text messages”) by the Defendant.