The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The act of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles should be deemed not to be a defamation but a political criticism or criticism, and there was no intention to slander a specific candidate or not to be elected by the defendant. Even if the act of the defendant falls under the elements of the main sentence of Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act, illegality is excluded by the proviso of the same Article.

Since Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act violates the Constitution, the defendant should be acquitted.

Although a series of candidates' act committed by the defendant constitutes a single comprehensive crime, the court below made a mistake as a substantive concurrent crime.

The punishment (fine 2.5 million won) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, first of all, whether the elements of the crime of aiding and abetting candidates and the illegality of the crime constitute the crime of aiding and abetting candidates in determining the mistake of facts and the misapprehension of the legal principles, since the defendant's notice is not a simple expression of opinion, but a statement of facts that can be proved, and the contents of the report are cut or slaping without good cause, the defendant's

Next, with respect to whether there was an intention of slandering the Defendant and not winning the election, the lower court recognized that the Defendant had the intention of slandering the F candidate and preventing him from winning the election by stipulating in detail the arguments and judgments on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under the title of “determination on the argument of the Defendant and the defense counsel” in the written judgment. In light of evidence and legal principles, the lower court’s determination is correct.

Furthermore, as to the rejection of illegality, the whole contents and context of the writing posted by the defendant, the expressions used, the frequency and time of posting, and the time of posting.