The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination of the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing is made ex officio prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing.

The Defendant asserts that “the statute of limitations has expired on this case,” and calls for ex officio determination of the statute of limitations.

However, the judgment of the court below on the above argument (based on the one election day publicly announced without multiple intra-party competition) is deemed legitimate, and therefore, the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. The Prosecutor asserts that “the instant crime constitutes concurrent crimes as it constitutes one crime on account of the formation of one crime by sending text messages for each act of sending text messages,” through a written opinion submitted after the lapse of the period for appeal, which was submitted by the Prosecutor. 2) In the event that several acts constituting the same crime are continuously conducted for a certain period of time as a single and continuous criminal intent, and where the damage legal interests are identical, each act should be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, if the unity and continuity of criminal intent are not recognized in multiple crimes or the method for committing such crimes are not identical, each act constitutes substantive concurrent crimes.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10467 Decided November 28, 2013). The aforementioned legal principles and the public official election law comprehensively determine the purpose of the short-term statute of limitations, the number of crimes related to each provision of the Public Official Election Act, and other relevant legal principles.

3. In the case of each text message listed in Nos. 4 and 5 of the crime sight table in the judgment of the court below, since it was sent at one day to the same addressee, it can be recognized that the criminal intent has continued.

However, in the case of the rest of each text message, not only difference between the date of sending and the date of sending, but also the number of subjects and persons receiving each text message seems to be much different, and their contents are not different from each other.