The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Although the Defendant displayed an incentive to E, there was no intention or purpose to spread it or show it to others via E (related to paragraph 1 of the indictment). 2) The Defendant did not have any fact on his line with K by read the incentive.

(2) The Defendant merely asked questions to an employee of the Election Commission at the time of a cooperative head’s presentation on candidates for an election campaign. As such, merely asked questions to an employee of the Election Commission does not constitute an election campaign (related to paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act). B. The lower court’s sentence on unreasonable sentencing (related to KRW 7 million of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination on door-to-door visits

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “AC, V, AF, X, andY’s residence were found in the place of residence of QR around February 7, 2019 and appealed to R for voting due to the departure of the head of the cooperative; and around February 13, 2019, the lower court found the elector to be guilty of all of the above door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door on February 7, 201; and determined that the act of door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door as of February 13, 2019 was a single crime; and then, it was a substantive concurrent crime.

B. Article 66 Subparag. 11 and Article 38 of the Act on Entrusted Elections by Public Organizations, Etc. stipulate the act of visiting electors on a door-to-door basis as an illegal election campaign. The crime of door-door visits is established by continuously visiting two or more units of houses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do937, Jun. 14, 2002). The purpose of a single election campaign is to ensure a single election campaign by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and time of the relevant election and the statutory election period, the details and place of door-to-door visits, time, and relationship with residents.