The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) The Defendants’ preparation and transmission of text messages written in facts constituting a crime to the Defendants’ assertion that the contents of the message are true and is related to public interest. Therefore, the illegality is excluded pursuant to the proviso of Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) It was true that Defendant B prepared and sent a text message claiming the misunderstanding of the facts between Defendant B and Defendant B. However, Defendant B did not know that Defendant B would deliver the text message, and there was no conspiracy to commit a crime described in the facts charged between A and the instant case.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3) In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case’s assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants, each sentence (a fine of KRW 700,000) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine ought to be made on the following grounds: (a) the alleged facts in order to be dismissed pursuant to the proviso of Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act are consistent with the truth in view of the overall facts; (b) in view of its content and nature, the offender is related to the public interest and also has the motive to indicate the facts for the public interest; (c) even if the public interest is not necessarily derived from superior motive to the private interest, both parties exist at the same time and the reasonableness thereof should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do7172, Aug. 13, 2015).