The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In regard to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the Defendants’ wrongful election campaign, the Defendants asked, prior to each of the above crimes, the Ro, an accountant in charge, whether volunteers were to wear the same uniforms and to participate in the election campaign by telephone to the Ycheon-gun Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “National Election Commission”), and the Defendants were to commit each of the above crimes on the ground that there is no problem with the employee of the election commission who was called at the time. Therefore, the Defendants did not have any awareness of intention or illegality of the illegal election campaign.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below found the Defendants guilty of each of the above crimes and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The violation of the Public Official Election Act by assault against the persons related to the election affairs management of Defendant A was committed by Defendant A, but Defendant A was able to take the victim’s chest once, and the victim’s chest was able to take the victim’s chest on two occasions, and the victim’s chest was not able to take the victim’s chest on two occasions.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant A used the above assault against the victim and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The respective sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: 2 years of suspended execution in June, Defendant B: fine of one million won) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the violation of the Public Official Election Act by the Defendants’ illegal election campaign, the Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court. On this point, the lower court stated in the part on the “determination of the Defendants’ assertion” and Article 16 of the Criminal Act that “the act of the Defendants’ act of misunderstanding that his act did not constitute a crime under the law shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding.”