The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the Defendant, like the facts charged, installed two telephone calls exclusively for sending text messages to the Defendant’s residence, and sent three times a total of 258,386 text messages.

However, it cannot be deemed that the act of installing a device for sending such text messages (only for sending Internet text messages) at the Defendant’s residence is a new installation of a facility similar to an election campaign office or liaison office prohibited under the Act on Election of Public Officials, unless the sending of text messages does not constitute an exception prescribed under the Public Official Election Act.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the installation of facilities similar to the election campaign office or election liaison office under the Public Official Election Act.

2. Determination

A. From March 16, 1994, the Act on the Election of Public Officials of the relevant legal principles stipulated that the election campaign office, election liaison office, election campaign commission, supporters’ association, or partner shop, or similar institution, organization, or facility may not be established or installed on behalf of a candidate except for election campaign office, election campaign liaison office, election campaign organization, etc.

The legislative intent of the above provision is to ensure the fairness of election by preventing excessive competition and waste caused by the establishment of an election campaign organization other than the statutory election campaign organization, and by guaranteeing equal opportunities for election campaigns among candidates.

Here, if any institution, organization, or facility was established for the purpose of "election campaign" and it was used as an election campaign office or liaison office, it is a similar institution under Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and its "election campaign" is not necessarily an election campaign that is not allowed under the Public Official Election Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10896, Dec. 26, 2013, etc.).