The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Punishment on the accused shall be determined by a fine of KRW 800,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant discussed the election strategies by stating that the three lines of Do Council members are no more than the Do Council members, the N and the 3 lines of the disabled group “I may move to the election at a malicious election,” and C military residents also predicted that the Defendant would go to the candidate for C head of Gun in the 7th local election, the Defendant is deemed to be a candidate for C head of Gun in the 20th local election, and S and K want to become a candidate for the 20th National Assembly election, and thus, each article listed in the attached crime list against Defendant, S or K (hereinafter “each article of this case”) constitutes an article related to the election.

B. The Defendant, as a candidate for the 20th National Assembly member, knew that each of the articles of this case was published favorable to K or unfavorable to S, and distributed M in which each of the articles of this case was published.

2) The Defendant distributed the newspapers received from N in a way other than ordinary way, such as the list Nos. 1 through 5 of the crimes committed by the Defendant.

2. The prosecutor, ex officio, requested the court to change the term “a newspaper or publication containing an article concerning an election” among the facts charged to “a newspaper or publication containing an article concerning an election,” and the term “before January 28, 2016” of the last two acts of indictment No. 2, “before February 1, 2016,” and “before January 28, 2016,” the date and time of the crime No. 4 in the annexed crime No. 5 is “ around January 28, 2016,” respectively, and the date and time of the crime No. 5 was changed to “ around February 1, 2016,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

However, despite the existence of the above reasons for reversal by the lower court, the Prosecutor’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of the lower court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

(a) Article 95(1) of the Election of Public Officials Act provides “any person.”