The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 95 (1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "no one shall distribute or post, distribute or post, or reproduce, distribute or post, distribute or post, in a way other than normal, newspapers, communications magazines, agencies, organizations, facilities, or other publications that carry articles concerning an election, except as otherwise provided for in this Act." Article 95 (2) of the same Act provides that "distribution in a normal way" refers to "distribution in a normal way and within the previous method and scope."

Therefore, in a case where the overall act can be seen to have been published and published within the previous method and scope in light of the contents, number and details of the article published in the newspaper in question, the distribution place, and other various circumstances, it shall not be deemed that the act does not constitute an ordinary method of distributing a newspaper that posted an article on the election prohibited by Article 95(1) of the Public Official Election Act.

(2) On March 25, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do39, Mar. 25, 2005). The lower court held that ① a local newspaper published by the Defendant is a non-permanent newspaper, and that there is a regional pending issue, such as the election of National Assembly members, local election, or reconstruction, or that there is a regional pending issue in which local residents are interested in the past and that there is a special request of an advertiser, and that there is an increase in the number of copies published in 15,00 through 20,000, 30,000 as of March 20, 2014; ② the number of copies published in 20,000, May 3, 2014 and June 20, 2014; and ② the number of copies published in e.g., each of the instant newspapers published by the Defendant cannot be deemed to have increased.