Defendant

All appeals filed by the Defendants A and B and by the Prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles on January 1, 2016, and W cafeteria group’s crime No. 1 and hereinafter “W cafeteria group”).

As to the Defendant, the specific name of the Defendant who falls under the pertinent item is omitted and is called “Defendant”.

I did not make a statement at the W cafeteria meeting as stated in the original judgment.

In addition, in light of the fact that the above group was led by B, that the defendant and C did not know that ten residents of R area were present, and that C independently paid the meal cost, the defendant did not invite a prior election campaign with B and C.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

On February 6, 2016, a meeting of the Senior Citizens Association around X-Myeon on February 6, 2016 refers to the crime No. 2 of the facts stated in the judgment below, and hereinafter referred to as "meeting of the Senior Citizens Association

The defendant did not speak at a meeting of the Senior Citizens Association as stated in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, the distribution of name cards by one defendant is an ordinary act, not an election campaign, and it does not constitute a distribution of name cards by illegal means or a prior election campaign.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

On January 14, 2016, a meeting of family-friendly gathering AC around January 14, 2016 refers to Article 3-1 (a) of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the lower judgment.

The defendant does not attend a meeting of a family-friendly council on January 14, 2016.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

The defendant, around March 5, 2016, called "AD to participate in the public opinion poll" and did not call "AD to appeal for support" on the facts of the crime No. 3-B of the judgment of the court below.