The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The text messages sent by the Defendant as stated in the lower judgment by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine (hereinafter “the instant text messages”) are merely meaning that “E candidates sent text messages with no specific facts in connection with the support of F candidates,” and it does not mean that F candidates’ text messages support E candidates, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have disseminated false facts.

Even if the text message of this case constitutes a statement of false facts, the Defendant did not have any awareness of false facts on the part of the Defendant, since there were reasonable grounds to believe that the F candidate did not have made a support declaration for the E candidate.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to whether the instant text message constitutes false facts, it is reasonable to view that the content of the instant text message refers to “no fact that the F candidate supported the E candidate” or “no text message sent by the E candidate to his/her support” as follows. The Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit. ① Whether the instant text message constitutes a false representation should be determined on the basis of the overall impression of the expression, on the premise of the ordinary method of expressing the expression by the general elector, on the basis of the overall purport of the expression, objective content, ordinary meaning of the words used, connection method of the words, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8947, Feb. 11, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8947, Feb. 11, 2010).