The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the Defendant’s defense counsel clearly stated that only the “unfair form of punishment” was the grounds for appeal on the date of the first trial on December 14, 2018 and the first trial on the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, although the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that “the Defendant’s speech and behavior shall not be deemed a intimidation at the time” in the above statement of grounds for appeal and sought a separate judgment as to whether the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine ex officio.

Even if this is not a legitimate reason for appeal, it shall not be considered a legitimate reason for appeal.

Even if the above misapprehension of legal principles is viewed as legitimate grounds for appeal, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the victims appeared to have suffered a considerable mental shock and fear due to the Defendant’s speech and behavior, and such speech and behavior of the Defendant constitutes intimidation. Therefore, the above misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendant is without merit.

The punishment (three million won of a fine) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. As the Public Official Election Act aims to ensure the legitimacy of state power and to contribute to the maintenance and development of democratic politics by ensuring that public elections, which are the basis of democratic politics, are held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures and by preventing any malpractice related to the election, it is necessary to strictly punish the relevant offense.

The Defendant made intimidation to the victims who wished to be a candidate for election solely on the ground that he/she criticized for a person supported by him/her. In light of the background of the crime, etc., the nature of the crime is not good, and this is highly likely to be criticized in that it constitutes a serious social criminal act beyond a mere infringement of personal legal interests.

In particular, in the case of victim F, "the victim F was unable to properly carry out an election campaign in the mental state after the crime of this case."