All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. The verdict and opinion of the jury involved in the trial on the participatory trial on the participatory trial on the participatory trial on the participatory trial on the participatory trial on violation of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials is not binding

(Article 46(5) of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials. Therefore, even if the court below accepted a verdict of conviction issued by a juror by unanimous opinion in the first instance court where the participatory trial was conducted, and found the first instance court not guilty as to the violation of restrictions on door-to-door visit No. 1 and the publication of false facts in the attached Table No. 46 of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials among the part on which the first instance court convicted the jury, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles

B. Determination on the argument related to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the restrictions on door-to-door visits is prohibited for an election campaign or for soliciting admission during the election period (Article 106(1) of the Public Official Election Act). Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), a person entitled to election campaigns may appeal for support of a political party or candidate at a place where ceremony of coming-of-age, marriage, funeral and marriage, funeral and marriage, stores, multiple waiting rooms, or other places open to the public (Article 106(2) of the Public Official Election Act). In light of the legislative intent and legal interest of the crime of door-to-door visits to prevent illegal election, such as the number of voters, from spreading, if not only daily life, but also a place where a large number of people have access to a “house” is widely available, it falls under Article 106(1) of the Public Official Election Act.