1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant is innocent; 3. The summary of this judgment shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the guilty part of the lower judgment) A) the part of the prior election campaign (the assertion as to “election campaign” under Article 58(1) of the Public Official Election Act) that Defendant, as a part-time lecturer at a university, took lectures by means of the following: (a) the Defendant, as a part-time lecturer at the university, copied and distributed newspaper articles on the date and time indicated in the facts of the lower judgment; and (b) explain the relevant contents, and (c) making a negative speech to the G candidate elected as the 18th F Party candidate (hereinafter “each of

(1) The scope of freedom of learning (Article 22(1) of the Constitution) guaranteed under the Constitution is limited to the scope of freedom of learning (Article 22(1) of the Constitution), and cannot be deemed to fall under election campaigns as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 58(1) of the Public Official Election Act, where the land for the purpose of promoting the defeat of a candidate in G does not constitute election campaigns as provided in the proviso of Article 58(1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials, or where the political party’s simple statement of opinion on election (Article 58(1)1), statement of opinion and expression of opinion (Article 3) on the recommendation of a candidate, each of the instant teaching activities cannot be deemed to constitute election campaigns prohibited under Article 254(2) (Article 58(1) of the Public Official Election

B) Part of an election campaign using status (Article 85(2) of the Public Official Election Act, which was after the lower judgment was sentenced, was changed to Article 85(2) of the Public Official Election Act by Act No. 12393, Feb. 13, 2014 to Article 85(3).

The legislative purport of Article 85(2) of the Public Official Election Act is to prevent a person who has the right to direct and supervise acts in light of the nature of the act of official duty from engaging in an election campaign by taking advantage of the act related to his/her official duty. However, the time-time lecture private defendant does not have any means to use a subordinate relationship or exercise the right to direct, such as explicitly or implicitly suggesting that the student will suffer disadvantages to the credits when he/she cast a vote to G candidates.