The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.

(e).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (the part concerning the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the promotion of the achievements of those who wish to be a candidate among the part concerning the crime) are guilty of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. The video of No. 1 attached to the judgment of the court below, which the court below convicted of the Defendant of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The following reasons do not constitute promoting Defendant B’s achievements.

(1) In order to interpret that a candidate who is prohibited from the Public Official Election Act is to publicize the achievements of the head of a local government who intends to become a candidate to publicize the results of the project promotion, changes in the results of the project and the results of the award, it shall be a content introduced that such local government’s achievements

Although Defendant B introduced the results of the project promotion, changes, and water performance in the video of the person in whose case the case was transmitted, there is no evidence that the results of the project promotion, changes, and water performance are the results of the project promoted by Defendant B, and there is no reference to such purport in the video of the case.

② The video image of the juvenile of this case is a video of the level of personnel management for the juvenile of the head of the local government who committed the crime.

In addition to talking about a small-year sub-committee as in the case of a video of a member of another head of a local government, it is revealed that the results of the small-year project implementation of the local government, changes, and water performance are different from each other.

③ The purpose of posting the motion picture of the year in which the instant case was sent was to promote Defendant B’s publicity, or the time when the posting was made became difficult to elect, or the citizens accepted the above motion picture as Defendant B’s achievement.

(2) The contents of the video are carried out while Defendant B was in office in the C market, and the residents' interest is examined.